To think that ALL smoking (cigarettes and e-cigs) should be banned in public places?!

(363 Posts)
babybearsmummy Mon 03-Mar-14 16:52:42

I've been sat in my GP waiting room with my little girl waiting for my appt and in walks a lady puffing away on an e-cig. She hasn't put it away and is just sat smoking it.

AIBU to think this is rude and that, just because it's not an actual cigarette, the same rules should apply, mainly because it's stinking the whole waiting room out!?!

CrayolaCocaColaRocknRolla Thu 19-Jun-14 09:55:52

Personally as a smoker I really don't mind going outside when we're at a bar/pub. BUT I would like at least SOME places be smoking places, or have a tap room like they used to have in my local. If it was banned in ALL public places there would be an uproar. I can wait 5 hours without a cigarette as I work, so I don't have to smoke when I'm shopping etc. I can wait until I get home. I suppose some people can't. I don't smoke near children/pregnant women/elderly. If someone asks me to move, I will. Some people don't like it. I do. I will hapily stand outside of a bus shelter if it's not raining. Most smokers aren't wankers about it.

sugar21 Wed 18-Jun-14 17:54:34

Christ what a lot of hoo ha over a fag. Booze is worse as is heroin and all Class A's. If you objected to the e-cig just ask the woman to switch it off. There are people having to sleep on the streets who have little to eat and every one gets into a strop over a fag.

ICanSeeTheSun Wed 18-Jun-14 17:27:42
U2TheEdge Wed 18-Jun-14 13:00:13

grin pubegardens

petalchops Tue 17-Jun-14 22:45:08

I'm afraid I don't think they should be allowed in public. I don't want my children thinking smoking in ANY format is socially acceptable. At the end of the day they still contains a drug. Just when smoking is starting to become taboo we need to keep the ball rolling.

IceRocket Tue 17-Jun-14 21:50:39

I use an ecig. I would use it in the pub, car, etc. But wouldn't dream of using in in doctors, hospital, work, playgroup or anywhere like that. I think there has to be a time & a place really.

Brilliant U2 well done flowers (and you OTheHuge, however you managed to kick the fags)

I compulsively cape too. This is me with my gen 4 device (yes I am getting silly now) grin

ineedausername Tue 17-Jun-14 20:20:03

well done U2 smile come and join us on the stop smoking thread, quite a few vapers over there smile

U2TheEdge Tue 17-Jun-14 20:18:14

I suck my thumb in bed and compulsively cape!

I must be really judged grin

Over two years vaping now. Not one cigarette. I can't even remember the last time I had a cough or chest infection. Never felt healthier.

ineedausername Tue 17-Jun-14 20:04:20

Don't worry Manatee, i can absolutely take someone opinion if they think its pathetic or whatever, i just don't like the almost evangelical spouting of nonsense smile

Oh, i'm on ecigs, and haven't smoke a real fag for 2 weeks. To me this is amazing! I have smoked since i was 17 (15 years) and probably on 20 a day for most of that time. I have no willpower. But these things are actually working for me smile

OTheHugeManatee Tue 17-Jun-14 18:17:14

I'm an ex smoker and judge compulsive e-cigarette users as I think it's basically (like real cigarettes) a form of thumb sucking for grownups. But I don't think they should be banned like cigarettes. The intrusion and smell off e-cigarettes is minimal, unlike tobacco smoke which is minging and lingers. I think e-cigarettes are a bit pathetic but wanting to ban them is just petty and controlling.

<awaits flaming from everyone>

Have you read the other posts in this thread? Several users of e-cigarettes report having reactions with them, so much so, some would revert back to smoking and say they should not be on the market without health warnings!

Yes, some people have a reaction to one or more of the ingredients. Some people can't vape PG so they look for VG juice. Some people find out there are certain flavours that don't agree with them, eg. I can't do most fruit flavours as they make my mouth sore. Some people decide that ecigs are not for them at all and find another method to quit. Some people don't manage to quit at all and end up back on fags. Half of them will die. What was your point again?

Even someone who sells them in London (the first shop to sell them in Covent Garden) says she would NEVER promote them as a healthy option. "The only good smoking is no smoking" (her quote).

Even a shop assistant said that, did she? Oh well then, I'm convinced! Nobody is advocating that non-smokers should start vaping for their health.

Look up the following sites

Links would have been nice but just for this post, OK smile

"Should you worry about secondhand e-cig vapors" from here?

This is an opinion piece. The only research referenced is from Stanton Glantz (who we will learn more about below) and that same FDA study which was dealt with in my last post.

"A new cancer study found e-cigarettes affect cells the same as cigarettes" from here?

Here is the article referred to in Nature. The first thing we learn is that this is not a study, it's an unpublished abstract (so not yet peer reviewed) which was presented at a conference. The cells used in the study were not normal human cells but specially modified and cultured pre-cancerous cells. The cells exposed to levels of nicotine similar to that found in vapers showed no difference to the controls, it was the cells exposed to nicotine at levels found in smokers that showed some differences. When you examine the abstract itself you will see that the only thing that is actually suggested by these preliminary findings is that high doses of nicotine can possibly speed the growth of pre-existing cancer. We already knew this. It hasn't stopped Professor John Britton (Director of the UK Centre on Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and heads the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group) from making the following statements:

“Nicotine itself is not a particularly hazardous drug,” says Professor John Britton, who leads the tobacco advisory group for the Royal College of Physicians.

“It’s something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine.

“If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today. It’s a massive potential public health prize.” (from BBC)

There is a good commentary on these preliminary findings here. I look forward to the responses from scientists when this study is actually completed, peer reviewed and published.

"ROONEY - e-cigarettes carry harmful effects for smokers,non smokers" - from here?

This is another opinion piece which references yet more opinion pieces. I simply do not have time to trawl back through a spaghetti of links to find where the assertions are coming from. If you want to spend some time doing that and provide some links I will happily comment.

"My boss smokes e-cigarettes in the office is this safe".

This is the 2010 Gupta article again, discussed in my last post.

Not to mention Dr Stanton Glantz Director for the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California San Francisco who says and I quote: E-cigarettes do not just emit "harmless water vapor" Secondhand e-cigarette aerosol (incorrectly called vapor by the industry), contains nicotine, ultrafine particles and low levels of toxins that are known to cause cancer. "E cigarettes contain and emit propylene glycol, a chemical that is used as a base in e-cigarette solution, and is one of the primary components in the aerosol emitted by e-cigarettes. Short term exposure causes eye, throat and airway irritation. Long term exposure can result in children developing asthma". Further "even though propylene glycol is FDA approved for use in some products, the inhalation of vaporised nicotine in propylene glycol is not. Some studies show that heating propylene glycol changes its chemical composition, producing small amounts of propylene oxide, a known carcinogen".

Oh I'm glad you mentioned him, he's always good for a laugh grin

Yes, technically 'vapour' from ecigs is an aerosol (like clouds, mist and the steam from your kettle once it becomes visible) - and? Yes it contains nicotine in very small amounts, as already discussed. Of course it contains 'ultrafine particles' - that's what an aerosol is! Yes, it contains very low levels of toxins that are known to cause cancer at much higher concentrations This has already been discussed in my previous post with reference to the Burstyn paper

Propylene Glycol has a very low toxicity profile and is in all sorts of things from household products, cosmetics, toothpastes and mouthwashes, food products, even medicinal inhalers. It's also used in fogging machines at concerts and festivals and used to be pumped around hospital air conditioning systems because it has antibacterial qualities (that practice was only stopped because of economics, not because it did any harm). Some people are a bit sensitive to it and it can cause minor irritation in susceptible people, just like any of countless household chemicals, foodstuffs, animals ... There may be a link with an increased risk of asthma (although it has been used quite commonly in asthma inhalers) - it's hard to tell because the study this statement relies on didn't separate out PG from glycol ethers.

Vaporised nicotine in propylene glycol is not FDA approved because it is neither a food nor a medicine and as such it is not within their remit to approve or ban. This will change as soon as the first medicinal licenses are granted for ecigs, probably at some point this year.

The propylene oxide claim is one of the most dishonest uses of scientific research I have ever seen! This is the study this pressure group has based their statement on - nothing to do with ecigs at all. To what temperature was it heated and in what conditions? How does the heat degradation of solar heat transfer fluids under conditions of stagnation or malfunction relate to what goes on in an ecig? Any ideas? I don't, and I doubt Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights do either. Not even Glantz has argued that propylene oxide is present in ecigs (and he has argued some right old bum gravy), in fact the only place I can find any reference to this link is the American anti-smoker's propaganda club, or whatever they are called.

Incidentally, Stanton Glantz is an increasingly non-credible source as he veers further and further away from scientific honesty. He is not a medical professional, his qualifications are in mechanical engineering.

In fact read the whole article "Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights 2014".

I think I've read enough! How about you read this (create an account to access full paper for free), this, this, this, this or this. Or, seeing as you like opinion pieces, how about this smile

Also to "ineedasuername" I smoked casually, not like an addict, in my late teens and early twenties when studying for exams, and CHOSE to stop because I could not get rid of a constant sore throat and cough! (Note- without any of the devices available today, just used my common sense really!)

Bully for you! <slow hand clap> Have you thought of sharing your amazing wisdom with WHO or ASH? I'm sure they'd be everso grateful.

As for sending out former smokers to be with smokers, then that is exactly what smokers used to do to non smokers, pollute the air, how the tide has turned! Now they now don't like the smell, should not be exposed to "harmful" smoke" etc etc. Ironic isn't it?

My agenda is harm reduction and prevention of early death and disease from smoking. What's yours?

Well, some actual links would have been good, anti, so I could see where you are getting all this twaddle from. It really is a bit much to expect people to go off and google your assertions. It's quite simple to do a link, the instructions are next to the box where you write your post. If it's a bit hard, you could just c&p the url - that would be useful.

Never mind, lets see what we have ...

Dr Sanjay Gupta reports that some of the most popular e-cigarette brands contain carcinogens, they can still cause cancer.

So this will be from here I presume. This is a popular science media piece by a non-expert (he's a neurologist by trade), published in 2010. Have you any idea how many studies on ecigs have been published since then? It's hard to know where Gupta has got his information from because he hasn't provided a reference, however the same assertion has been made a few times, but here's the thing: pretty much everything around you 'contains carcinogens'. The important factor is whether they are present in quantities that are likely to be hazardous to health...

Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces... Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern. from Burstyn, 2014: Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks.

The FDA has also detected a toxic chemical found in antifreeze in some leading brands.

This one's even older, it's from a tiny 2009 study on 18 cartridges from 4 different products (none of which are still on the market). This was covered quite adequately by the study linked to above. From their key conclusions:

• The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early-technology product (and even this did not rise to the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.

It doesn't stop the FDA from trotting it out at every available opportunity - anybody would think they didn't have anything better grin

Although manufacturers say they are "pretty sure" their product is safe, the jury is still out about the health effects (and consequently second hand effects) with e-cigarettes.

All that is missing now is longitudinal studies. We will never get these unless a large number of people continue vaping for a long time. If the message is 'don't vape until we know for sure it's safe' then in 20 or 30 years time, hundreds of thousands more lives will have been lost to smoking and we still won't have any data.

Manufacturers are NOT required to disclose the ingredients in e-cigarette liquid nor the substances present in the vapor inhaled and exhaled by the user.

I agree we could do with better labelling, and so do most vapers. Meanwhile, I do know what's in mine: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine, nicotine and food flavourings - because while it is not yet a legal requirement (it will be by 2016), most manufacturers are perfectly happy to list ingredients. Labelling is also subject to these EU directives: Dangerous Substances Directive 67/548/EEC, Dangerous Preparations Directive 99/45/EC and, from 2015, Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures CLP Regulation 1272/2008. Of course, those who are still worried can easily buy the ingredients and mix their own.

This is getting rather long and I have things to do. I will be back later to address the rest of your points in a separate post.

ineedausername Tue 17-Jun-14 11:23:28

That's good to know, perhaps I should just use my common sense to stop then? Are you off preaching to people with eating disorders and drug addicts also?
Just tell them all to use common sense too?

ilovesooty Tue 17-Jun-14 10:23:20

I'm not allowed to use one at work and I wouldn't use one in a doctor's surgery. However I can't believe the amount of hysterical and sanctimonious twaddle on this thread.

Eminybob Tue 17-Jun-14 10:17:20

E cigs are designed to help people quit smoking. IMO, they should be used as a replacement when getting a nicotine craving, and if it were me using them I would try to stick to when I would normally have a cigarette. I gave up a couple of years ago, before this craze, and I used nicotine replacement mints. I only used them when getting a craving, not sat there popping them all day long.

Anyway, I think people who constantly have an e cig handing out their mouth look revolting and common (just as smokers would do if they wondered around all day long puffing away - which they don't)

I also think that allowing them in any public place gives a really bad message to kids, that it is ok to use them. It's not, they have addictive nicotine and other chemicals in them. Obviously I'd rather a child used them than an actual cigarette, but I think the message being given is damaging.

That's my opinion anyway.

antismoker111 Tue 17-Jun-14 10:00:06

Dr Sanjay Gupta reports that some of the most popular e-cigarette brands contain carcinogens, they can still cause cancer. The FDA has also detected a toxic chemical found in antifreeze in some leading brands. Although manufacturers say they are "pretty sure" their product is safe, the jury is still out about the health effects (and consequently second hand effects) with e-cigarettes. Manufacturers are NOT required to disclose the ingredients in e-cigarette liquid nor the substances present in the vapor inhaled and exhaled by the user.

Have you read the other posts in this thread? Several users of e-cigarettes report having reactions with them, so much so, some would revert back to smoking and say they should not be on the market without health warnings!

Even someone who sells them in London (the first shop to sell them in Covent Garden) says she would NEVER promote them as a healthy option. "The only good smoking is no smoking" (her quote).

Look up the following sites: "Should you worry about secondhand e-cig vapors". "A new cancer study found e-cigarettes affect cells the same as cigarettes". ROONEY - e-cigarettes carry harmful effects for smokers,non smokers". "My boss smokes e-cigarettes in the office is this safe". Just to mention a few! Not to mention Dr Stanton Glantz Director for the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California San Francisco who says and I quote: E-cigarettes do not just emit "harmless water vapor" Secondhand e-cigarette aerosol (incorrectly called vapor by the industry), contains nicotine, ultrafine particles and low levels of toxins that are known to cause cancer. "E cigarettes contain and emit propylene glycol, a chemical that is used as a base in e-cigarette solution, and is one of the primary components in the aerosol emitted by e-cigarettes. Short term exposure causes eye, throat and airway irritation. Long term exposure can result in children developing asthma". Further "even though propylene glycol is FDA approved for use in some products, the inhalation of vaporised nicotine in propylene glycol is not. Some studies show that heating propylene glycol changes its chemical composition, producing small amounts of propylene oxide, a known carcinogen". In fact read the whole article "Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights 2014".

Also to "ineedasuername" I smoked casually, not like an addict, in my late teens and early twenties when studying for exams, and CHOSE to stop because I could not get rid of a constant sore throat and cough! (Note- without any of the devices available today, just used my common sense really!)

As for sending out former smokers to be with smokers, then that is exactly what smokers used to do to non smokers, pollute the air, how the tide has turned! Now they now don't like the smell, should not be exposed to "harmful" smoke" etc etc. Ironic isn't it?

There have been numerous studies which have shown that passive "vaping" can cause various irritations in people - just check websites, there are lots of them!

No, you provide a link to back up what you're saying. That's how it works. Lots of people have sensitivities to all sorts of things, you need something stronger than that to justify a ban and the evidence of harm from e cigarettes is simply not there. On the other hand, if vapers are sent out with smokers then a) you are subjecting NON-smokers to second hand smoke and b) you are putting them into a situation where they are at serious risk of relapse. There is plenty of evidence of harm from a) and b), hence ASH's position.

That doesn't mean that vaping in a doctor's waiting room is a polite or considerate thing to do - personally I wouldn't and it's up to the surgery if they choose to not allow it.

The person who used an e-cig could have used a patch BEFORE turning up for her appointment or is that something else I don't understand?

Why on earth would someone do this when gum exists? When lozenges, sprays and inhalators exist? It's a ridiculous suggestion and yes, it shows a massive lack of understanding, sorry.

ICanSeeTheSun Mon 16-Jun-14 23:09:41

Don't bother me after the 1st paragraph.

I have had 8 days of pure hell, I don't want sympathy or empathy.

I am sweating more, my hair and skin is greasy, my chest hurts, my throat hurt. I'm suffering from this weird insomnia/fatigue thing. My gums are bleeding every time I brush my teeth. On top of that my concentration is messed up and irritable.

Giving up smoking is bloody hard.

I will do it, but give me a bloody break and don't judge me when I am trying my hardest to give up.

mouse26 Mon 16-Jun-14 23:02:45

I dont think thry should be banned in all public places but I think there are places they shouldnt be used. I love my ecig BUT I dont use it in shops, doctors, on the school playground etc. I wouldnt have lit a fag up in those places when i smoked and I can manage without nicotine while im shopping or seeing my gp. I do use mine at my desk at work though, management prefer that to me nipping out for a nicotine break every hour or so grin

ICanSeeTheSun Mon 16-Jun-14 23:02:42

I'm an ex smoker ( can I say that after 8 days) but other people smoking, vaping or using any NRT.

I have put loads of people at risk of 2nd hand smoke. I have no right to dictate where or when other people smoke.

ineedausername Mon 16-Jun-14 23:00:26

and there are just as many websites and studies which say it isn't harmful...
And no, you don't understand as you clearly aren't a smoker!

antismoker111 Mon 16-Jun-14 22:46:09

There have been numerous studies which have shown that passive "vaping" can cause various irritations in people - just check websites, there are lots of them! The person who used an e-cig could have used a patch BEFORE turning up for her appointment or is that something else I don't understand? In fact several people who have posted here said they smell so tell them too that they are wrong! FYI the smell was evident LONG before we saw the device when we were affected.

Doesn't take long for the killjoys to get their teeth into ex-smokers, does it? You'd think they'd be glad smokers are moving on to something that's entirely harmless to anyone else. But oh nooooo, can't possibly have smokers finding something that helps them give up, can we?

Just shows there are plenty of people who aren't interested in health at all, their true motivation is making other people miserable.

ineedausername Mon 16-Jun-14 19:56:51

well said plenty ;)

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now