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!?!

aller I can't be arsed linking up but you know it will be easy for me to find.

Ostrich - head in sand.

Where are you getting the idea that
Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

Accidentally posted there. Where are you getting the idea that any of those things other than nicotine are in e liquid? My e liquid has nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerine and food grade flavouring.

www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/10-chemicals-identified-so-far-e-cig-vapor-are-california-prop-65-list-carcinogens-and-reproductive

Clearly can't do links - sorry.

I love my E-cig. It's a better alternative , but I'm under no illusions that it's a safer option. Our lungs were made for oxygen only, anything else will be a poison and will eventually do harm .

Ah but Queen - you can't have seen the bit of research that I saw that said that in some circumstances it's possibly for virtually undetectable (in spectroscopic terms) amounts of certain metals to get into the fluids from the solder on some types of atomisers. Of course that research also pointed out that these amounts are miniscule fractions of the amounts of the same types of substances you get from:
Eating food cooked in any form of metal container
Eating food wrapped in foil while still hot
Drinking from a metal container
Eating using worn implements like forks or spoons, and many new items of cutlery
Eating food that has been cut up using most metal kitchen knives
Breathing in the air in any large population centre e.g. any city in the UK and many towns

But that wouldn't matter to Cigarettesandsmirnoff, because e-cigs are intrinsically Bad And Evil

Queen, I think it's probably from that discredited 2009 study that gets trotted out with tedious regularity. Traces of a few nasties were found in a whole 2 cig-alike samples tested. Lots of scientists have since pointed out that the levels of these nasties were similar to what is found in medicinal NRT and far lower than is permitted in general work environments - i.e. not present in sufficient quantity to be a hazard to health.

Still, it's a lovely context-free list of non-oil-based chemical names. Look at all those big words! not sure what nicotine is doing on that list though, it's kind of the whole point of the things.

This is very good on toxicology and contaminants. Like the other links I have provided, it's a review of lots of research studies. I'm pretty sure the 2009 study is included.

I've had a look at the journal articles that were cited in Cigarettes' link. The first one found levels of toxicants in an ecig to be pretty much the same as a nicorette inhalor. The second one found increased levels of acetone, acetic acid, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the air from an 8m cubed room after vaping but said that the aldehydes could have been naturally produced by the person vaping.

Sounds about right

Although I just left the room and came back in. It smells of cookies in here. Oh the humanity!

I just looked and the review I linked to covers the two studies from Cigarettes' link and the 2009 (actually it was 2008) study, along with 51 other sources.

I don't think E-cigs are evil and bad . I use one myself.

I just think it's very weird that grown adults refuse to except that E-cigs are anything but healthy ! Bizzare .

It wasn't so long ago that cigarettes were considered healthy, or that the world was flat and you could fall of the edge .

Ignorance is bliss hey!

www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm172906.htm

This is from Jan 14.

NYC are banning e-cigs in their bars and restaurants. Our nearest theme park doesn't allow ECigs to be smoked anywhere except for the smoking zones. It's only a matter of time, I'm afraid!

We're not arguing that it's healthy. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't affect health negatively in some way. What we are saying is that it is ~1000 times safer than cigarettes and a hell of a lot more effective than any other nicotine delivery device for giving up smoking.

There isn't any research on that page Cigarettes, just the FDA running round like headless chickens going we don't know anything about them!

Which is clearly BS.

The problem is that the more people panic about the possible issues that may be found with e-cigs if we look hard enough, and the more outcry there is about them, the more people will be put off or even prevented from changing to e-cigs from real cigs. Even the most pessimistic reports on e-cigs state they are approximately 1000x safer than real cigarettes - so why are they being regulated more strictly than real cigarettes, and liquid needs to be packaged more securely than substances like bleach?

There are very few (if any) things that can be considered 100% safe at any dose or intake level. Over indulging in many vegetables can be highly damaging to health, without even considering substances they may pick up through fertilisation, transport or packaging - so where is the outcry against them?

Standard drinking water, whether bottled or tap, contains traces of carcinogenic elements including arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium and thallium. There are permitted levels of all of these, because it's recognised that they will always be present. Shall we campaign against water, and say how bad THAT is for health?

We should be campaigning against the very dangerous dihydrogen monoxide that is present in all drinking water.

Well said Allergic. There are rather a lot of lives at stake here, lives we know will be cut short if people continue smoking.

The fact still remains that these are unregulated. They could put anything in them. I've managed to stop my granny buying them of the car boot and to get them from the same shop I do.

In 20 years time, if you were deathly ill and it was contributed to the e-cig. Who would you be more angry at? Yourself for having blind faith in something that could be knocked up in a shed or the vapour company's miracle stop smoking aid (snake oil)?

Of course there will be pro E-cig links, it's probably made the tobacco industry them selves cashing in. If they are that safe would you let your child inhale one ? Even a 0%nicotine one?

plenty you sound rather hysterical and cultish.

Maybe you've just run out of arguments.

Cigarettes YOU sound almost hysterical. To be honest the amount I was smoking I probably wouldn't have been alive in another 20 years if I'd carried on. Now at least I've got a much better chance of surviving (about 1000 times better according to current research) - I'd rather take that chance than the no chance I would have had.

You are contributing to the "fear of the unknown" culture which is trying to BAN e-cigs - do you really think that emphasising all the possible things that might be found is more important than trying to help people quit doing something that is virtually guaranteed to kill them? NOTHING can be proven to be 100% safe - as I said above, not even the water we all drink.

We cannot regulate against the unknown just in case there might be something we haven't discovered yet, otherwise virtually all the current medicines used to save lives would never have been approved for use. What we can do is try to encourage people to make a change that is likely to be better for them in the long run though only 99.9% likely, but is definitely not worse. The more you shout that there may be a possibility of harm, the more chance none of us will have that option going forwards.

None of this research is coming from the tobacco industry. They're in favour of stricter regulation (such as what's going through with the TPD at the moment) because it would ban pretty much everything except for their shitty useless cig-alikes which comprise approx 2% of the current market.

plenty are you sure about that...

blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/02/17/bat-tweaks-a-term-to-promote-e-cigarettes-on-tv/

uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/17/us-britain-bat-advert-idUKBREA1G12W20140217

Of course they need stricter regulations plenty Jesus you could be smoking bleach and not know it!

Not a hysterical just a realist.

Your last paragraph aller is beyond ridiculous.

Please tell us why it is ridiculous to state that it is impossible to regulate against the unknown (without an out and out ban of course)?

The regulations being requested by the tobacco industry aren't those controlling the content of the liquid, they are those to control the type of delivery system. Specifically they are campaigning for allowing those delivery systems that are the ones currently being developed by the tobacco industry - the ones that LOOK like real cigarettes, and restricting the possibility of using other delivery systems - the ones that don't look like cigarettes.

It may be incidental that the highest profit margins are available on the cigalike e-cigs (the kind the tobacco industry are lobbying for).