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

[babybearsmummy]

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!?!

What bugs me though is people who drive cars are pumping out all sorts of crap. Do they think of those bairns in buggys who are just at the right height to get a face full of exhaust?

Maybe we should ban cars in public places

Widow - I really want to know WHY you object to someone vaping in your office, for example. Why?? I genuinely am struggling to understand.

I agree that ecigarettes are better than regular cigarettes but nicotine is still a drug that lodges in the brain and causes memory disfunction, it has been found in the blood of 'passive vapers' and while they do polute less than conventional cigarettes they do put detectable levels of several significant carcinogens and toxins into the air. They are safer than cigarettes for sure, no question, but are they safe, no!

Of course they are not the only source of toxins and carcinogens in the world but as a non smoker I have the right to have my space protected from them in the same way the law protects my indoor space from the toxins in conventional cigarette smoke. No pearl clutching, fainting required.

Misty - have you read the second comment re the article you linked to?

S Glantz, while your intentions seem noble, if not a bit condescending, your stated facts in response to the study are not completely accurate, and your comments do not portray what the study found. For example, the levels of acetic acids, acetone, and isoprene are in levels 10,000 times lower than the average person would receive in a room heated with a central forced-air heating system, not 20% of what a cigarette would put into the air. You need to re-read the study.

Additionally, there is more formaldehyde absorbed into the skin by washing your hands just one time with the average restroom soap from a restaurant or other public establishment that one would receive being in a room full of e-cigarette users for an entire year.

While it is true that some inexpensive e-cigarettes do use some chemicals which may contain higher levels of some chemicals and perhaps carcinogens, generally speaking, the base chemical used in standard liquids for an e-cigarette are purified propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin. These are the same chemicals used to give asthma and pulmonary patients breathing and nebulizer treatments. These liquids allow the breakdown of the nicotine into the body the same as they allow a nebulizer to deliver drugs (NABA and SAIDS) to pulmonary patients.

Instead of continually trying to vilify those who are addicted to nicotine, let's first try congratulating them on at least dumping the horrible habit of tobacco use, which puts out 400+ additional, truly harmful chemicals to the smoker, and those around them. Instead of just screaming "BAN IT!" to anyone who will listen, why not try a truthful, educative approach first? Just don't try to educate by trumping up the facts, simply because it bruises your dislike of their habit.

Dr. Peter Protero
Dr. of Pulmonology

And nicotine has actually been shown to enhance memory...

I missed you allergic

I can't believe this thread is still rumbling on!

still I use liberty flights but always stuck with menthol. I tried cherry menthol but the fluid is more 'watery' and I feel I smoke more and my chest felt a bit tight.

The current new EU directive is actually stricter on vaping products than on traditional tobacco products

Yes it is - and I'm still waiting to read anything sensible about that ...

(waves at Cigarettes) I guess this thread will keep going for as long as you get people saying "I know there's no real reason at all to object to other people vaping near me, but as it makes me feel a bit icky because I associate it with real smoking then it should be banned". Or as lng as you get people making it very clear they feel that vapers should be punished for their addiction by being made to stand in the cold & rain along with real polluting smokers.

No I dont think you are unreasonable. Cigarettes and e-cigarettes should be treated the same. Patches obviously do not give any smoke, so why not use them in crowded places. If someone cannot last the half hour or so in a GP waiting room then seriously they have big problems. No need for others to suffer because of it.

I dont know why this lady needed to use the e cig indoors, she wouldn't be able to smoke a real cigarette indoors so why an e cig?

Anyway having a young child i wouldnt want them to think smoking is an acceptable habit so i dont really think YABU imo x

Antismoker - smoking is an addiction, so yes, people clearly do have a big problem with it! And really, people are 'suffering' from others using an e-cig? do you have anything to actually back that up?
and fyi, cigarettes and e-cigs are not the same, hence shouldn't be treated the same!

By the way, i don't think she should've used it in the waiting room.

Gosh, what an old thread

Have you seen ASH's latest Briefing on Electronic Cigarettes? It's very good.

In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms of secondhand smoke. ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be subject to this legislation, but that it should be for organisations to determine on a voluntary basis how these products should be used on their premises.

also ...

One stated advantage of smokefree legislation is that it de-normalises smoking, effectively distancing the behaviour from what is an accepted social norm. The ban on smoking in public places has reinforced in many people’s minds that such behaviour has gone from a normal, widely accepted activity to one that is abnormal and unaccepted. There are concerns that electronic cigarettes will undermine this process, threatening the now established practice of smokefree public places, such as at work or on public transport. However to date there is little evidence to suggest this is the case.

and ...

One of the risks highlighted by professionals is that electronic cigarettes could act as a ‘gateway’ to smoking tobacco among children. Current evidence suggests this phenomenon is not occurring. Among children, current electronic cigarette use is confined almost entirely to those who have already tried smoking.

antismoker, vapourisers (ecigs) also do not produce any smoke. They do produce a little steam, with negligible health risks, which settles out of the atmosphere very quickly. There are of course questions of etiquette to be considered before vaping in a doctor's waiting room but the fact that out of all the emission free (and ineffective) NRT products on the market you suggest a patch should be used to tide a quitter over a half hour wait shows how very little you know about any of this. It takes hours for a patch to release enough nicotine to curb any cravings. Gum, lozenges, spray or inhalator would all be far better choices for this situation (but not as good as nipping to the loo for a quick stealthy vape).

well said plenty ;)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.