To ask smokers to move away from station entrance?

[PinkyAndTheBump]

I don't like walking through a cloud of smoke to get into station. It's a small station, with single entrance on this side of tracks - like double French doors, so no other alternative.

Would it be unreasonable to request Greater Anglia to mark out a hashed yellow "no-smoking" area there? It's not as if it actually provides them any shelter from the weather than standing elsewhere, and don't get me started on the litter of their stubs!

I've tried (politely) asking smokers not to stand right by the entrance, but just get verbal abuse back!

Fantastic, PubeGardens Just this one line makes it worthwhile: I don’t know what’s better about e-cigs – not getting cancer or annoying non-smokers by not getting cancer

Another good one you may like: recently I was told that ecigs are dangerous to bystanders "because of the mental anguish they suffer in thinking someone's smoking near them"

Quite incredible, really ...

Please tell me you were told that in jest (although if they were serious it's even funnier)

Puzzled that's brilliant - mental anguish my arse
A lot of posters on here are suffering from a very bad case of hysteria though.
I work in a hospice and, as such, we have a legal exemption from the indoor smoking ban and there is one designated room where patients can smoke. Sometimes we can smell the smoke and there's a lot of tutting and hand waving. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I'm a non smoker btw.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm afraid the lady meant it - she was quite nasty about it too. Mind you, I don't suppose I helped by laughing in her face afterwards

Like I said: hysteria. Some people just can't be helped ...

I had a similar exchange with a woman on a train recently, Puzzled. An announcement came over the tannoy that all smoking including e-cigs were banned, and the woman said something along the lines of 'Ooh, they shouldn't be doing that'. I know I shouldn't have, but I bit and said that it was hardly the same as smoking, to which she replied that people found it offensive. That, to me, sums up the mindset of a particular type of anti-smoking crusader - completely illogical and all about control.

plenty I would go with 95% all I meant was, lets not rush into vaping and then discover, god forbid, it causes something awful in ppl.

As for making available, I suppose what I meant was, make it cheaper by far than cigarettes.

I sometimes wonder whether vaping is more popular among women? The only discussions I hear are on MN but there is lots of discussions about cherry flavour etc.

If vaping does take off then we will have a new ethical dilemma because you can bet that cigarettes will still be sold to poorer people in poorer countries and they will still get all the diseases we avoid in rich old UK

You can bet that cigarettes will still be sold to poorer people in poorer countries and they will still get all the diseases we avoid in rich old UK

You're right, of course; it appears that developing countries are very much in the sights of tobacco companies - their latest target, so to speak

cruickshank Totally agree

So we hold back for a few decades just to be sure and what then? Millions more people will have died and we still won't have the data because there hasn't been a large enough group to do proper stats. Basic toxicology tells us that vaping is safe enough and any residual risks are likely to be small. That's not a reason to stop researching, there will be things we can make safer without completely destroying what vaping is.

Vaping is already miles cheaper than smoking. I am spending about £15 a month. Medicinal licencing would make it far more expensive. Even if it was a free prescription that would only be for a few weeks,what do people do then?

The vaping world seems to be mostly made up of men and the main vaping forums can be less than pleasant for women. That's why MN vaping community is so valuable, I haven't come across anything like it anywhere else. Both men and women like cherry flavour BTW, and custard and gummy bear and bubblegum and apple cake and passion fruit ... Flavours are crucial for helping vapers stay off the fags and distance themselves from their former habit.

Vaping has already taken off. 700,000 people have already succeeded in quitting using vaping in the UK alone which absolutely dwarfs the success rate of NHS stop smoking services. You are correct about the ethical dilemma, the who told a major Indian newspaper that smoking was better than vaping because cigarettes have filters! Ecigs are not that practical in developing countries though, snus would be a much better option there but there is similar political antipathy concerning that.

As I said, its great that you are supportive of vaping. However it would be better to research, learn, ask questions rather than come up with half baked ideas. Everybody is very keen to do that rather than actually listen to vapers or read the evidence.

plenty did you mean to be so rude?

Another good one you may like: recently I was told that ecigs are dangerous to bystanders "because of the mental anguish they suffer in thinking someone's smoking near them"

How about the mental happiness I get when I see someone smoking an ecig and i think, good, one less person in danger?

Why should I be deprived of my potential happiness because someone else has mental anguish?

We could make this go on forever...

I often find smokers are selfish and I hate it when I have to pass through their wafts of smoke with my (asthmatic) children. I've politely asked them to move before though and have never had a problem with them complying.

My own view is that smoking should be prohibited from all public places after a certain date.

I also support the Royal Collge of Paediatricians' proposal for a smoke free generation: making it illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2000.

YANBU.

Beast - plenty did you mean to be so rude?

Gosh, how original

Looking back through my post I am guessing the bit you took offence at was where I implied that your ideas were half-baked (sorry, but they are) and that you could do with researching a bit before you came up with any more (sorry, but you could).

Forgive my frustration but this actually matters on a wider scale. All that needs to happen for vaping to fulfill its potential to save lives is ... nothing! It just needs to be left to develop and improve, as it has been for the last few years. The tech is improving on an almost weekly basis and it's growing exponentially, only occasionally slowed by baseless and damaging scare stories in the media. We could do with a few bits of regulation but they are not the bits we're getting. I expect what's actually needed will be covered by the forthcoming British Standard which is being written by ECITA - i.e. people who actually understand vaping.

Meanwhile we have the EU and WHO, not to mention the FDA over in the States (and what happens over there generally affects here sooner or later) coming up with stupid stupid ideas because they are not listening to vapers they are listening to pharma, big tobacco and well-meaning but thoroughly ignorant public health bods. These stupid ideas are becoming law and will kill vaping.

After a year of this shit I'm just a bit battle-scarred, that's all [tired smiley].

Not trying to be original, it's a set phrase that ppl use when they want you to realise what you are being like.

"Took exception to" you mean "where I was deliberately nasty and contemptuous when someone was trying to be positive".

I have been on the vaping threads too, and I have been positive about them and been listening and learning. My points about making sure it is safe are only caveats in case some one else comes along and says, don't be simplistic, we need vaping to be safe first. I actually would like vaping to be everywhere, tomorrow.

I can you see you are tired. Everybody is tired. I think it's made you paranoid and you see things that aren't there.

My station has these, everyone ignores them. I have to take a big breath walking in and out of kings cross.

My points about making sure it is safe are only caveats in case some one else comes along and says, don't be simplistic, we need vaping to be safe first.

So you are saying we have to make sure it's safe in case someone else says we have to make sure it's safe?

Non-smokers actually compromise a lot - yes, banning a legal activity from all public indoor spaces while going on to whinge like a bunch of fucking toddlers about people doing said activity in the fucking open air is a massive, massive compromise.

Well, smoking indoors in public places isn't a legal activity, is it?

I spent years dealing with public transport that stank - even when they made it so that smoking was only allowed upstairs on buses, the smell drifted down; going to meetings where there was so much smoke that my eyes were streaming; having meals out ruined because the idiots on the next table insisted on smoking throughout their meal; coming home from parties and pubs with my clothes and hair stinking of stale smoke; clearing up cigarette stubs all over the place; being treated as totally unreasonable if I said that actually I did mind if people smoked in the car. And don't get me started on the way dfil used to leave burning cigarettes in ashtrays on the floor when the dc were toddlers. And then there was Kings Cross.

So yes, I think non-smokers have compromised for, literally centuries. And it really isn't too much to ask to suggest that smokers could walk a few steps to avoid forcing other people to go through their smoke.

I was answering the point that nobody really wants to ban smoking because we all make so much money out of it.

I was saying, not me, I would happily pay extra tax; I don't want blood money from you guys all dying young, that is a terrible way to run a society.

I was saying dont ban smoking because making it illegal is a way to criminalise ppl who are trying hard to come to terms with things. But lets use vaping a lot more as a way to destroy smoking.

I didn't want someone bouncing up to say "ooh but we don't know if vaping is safe yet" which they do all the time and I agree it is annoying and anyway it would detract from my point. So I said "obv if we know it is safe" .

It hit a nerve with you, so sorry about that, but equally I think you ought to recognise that you got it wrong because you were looking to be offended, and you were rude.

On the "thin end of the wedge" thing, what I see quite often is the following.

Two sets of ppl sitting outside. One table, perfectly legally and reasonably, is smoking. Person at table holds her fag back away from her own food and friends so the smoke doesn't get over the food and make everyone cough. She probably doesn't notice that she is holding it so it blows onto the other table and is getting on their food and making them cough. Other table asks her to hold it so it doesn't do this.

Cue both parties feeling the other is BU.

I didn't want someone bouncing up to say "ooh but we don't know if vaping is safe yet" which they do all the time and I agree it is annoying and anyway it would detract from my point. So I said "obv if we know it is safe" .

How is 'if we know it's safe' a helpful thing to say when we won't know that for decades (if at all, ever)? You're basically playing right into those people's hands and spreading the FUD for them. Nobody else brought up the safety aspects of vaping - you did! It's surely better to wait until somebody brings up those points and then present them with the evidence we do have and how much residual risk there is likely to be.

Could you explain how your NHS suggestion is at all helpful?

You don't know what you are talking about and because of this your ideas are not well thought out and not helpful. Is that more polite?

Person at table holds her fag away from her own food and friends...She probably doesn't notice that she is holding it so it blows onto the other table...Other table asks her to hold it so it doesn't do this.

Oh yes, they do. And it's mistaken to believe they don't and to portray all smokers like that.

I've had to ask people to stop doing this twice and I am 50, have never smoked and go out a lot. So it's not a big problem IME. But maybe it is for you.

Both times the people knew exactly what they were doing. The first time was in a New York City restaurant - so a long time ago - and I think there was a bit of power play going on and I think the man was deliberately trying to put us down. He was annoyed but couldn't very well refuse.

The second time was a Spanish woman in Spain who I think was more intimidated by her fellow diners than me. I didn't speak. I just tapped her arm and pointed. DH was impressed. So were the other table. I'd had quite a bit to drink at that point.

So yes, inconsiderate smokers annoy me. But I don't find them clustering in a doorway or shelter, even at a hospital, annoying. I was being treated at a centre of excellence. I have the feeling that if they thought the sad smokers in their pyjamas huddled at the door, sometimes towing drips, were a major health risk to people passing through in seconds they'd have chased them off.

I'm really glad that smoking is banned indoors in public areas or private workspaces. But I can't get worked up about people smoking in the open air.

So vaping might not be safe. But we know smoking is definitely not safe!

So if vaping is going to be the thing that stops someone from smoking then it is surely the lesser of the two evils.

Yes, thank you, that was at least more polite.