Sat I hairdressers on two seater couch and other woman waiting is chugging on e-cig

[whoahokeycokey]

Just this really. I've got colour on waiting for it to take and as it's a small hairdressers (3 chairs) they rotate us whilst colour set etc. The woman next to me is chugging away on her e-cig. It stinks of some rancid sweet smell.
Why is it acceptable to whip these things out? I've noticed a lot that they are used in places where smoking is not allowed. I know my 2nd hand inhalation isn't going to cause me a great harm but it's making my teeth itch!

Stay at home. Far safer than venturing out into the wild unknown of a city, town, village, or hamlet.

Simple solution.

No diesel fumes, no emissions from anything, no nothing. Apart from the usual chemicals within the home of course.

Even if it's not unhealthy it is very antisocial.

So is farting, burping, smelling of BO or strong perfume, swearing, talking loudly in the phone...

Ah this debate is never ending.

First it was smoking cigarettes.

Now it is vaping.

The people who object to vaping IMO are those who would object to anything in order for them to appear superior.

I am not a smoker nor am I a vaper. But I live and let live with vaping. It is a non argument AFAIC.

But carry on. Some people will only be happy when everything is banned, and they can do a Mrs Bouquet with her superior attitude and head in the air. LOL.

Get on the relationships board and see how awful some lives are and get back to us.

Well, it's only commonsense that inhaling chemical vapours into your lungs is not going to be good for you or those around you. It's just a question of how harmful and whether it is harmful enough to limit exposure to those who would not do it through choice. I would trust research suggesting it isn't harmful as much as the research which suggested it was a good idea to encourage diesel cars or put cladding with a highly flammable core on high rise buildings. I see no reason why a form of pollution like this should be allowed anywhere and everywhere - I would rather it was limited to specific locations, rather than inflicting it on the entire population at all times and in all places.

Chemical vapours that are more than fresh air, that is!

Clutch your pearls folks! It is the rule regarding this kind of thing.

Yes, like it was with smoking. Not.

Does objecting to vaping make you feel superior?

Do you object to other things as well. Just wondered. Like the scrum at the school gates with engines running and taking up parking spaces that don't exist, blocking in the residents who are often discommoded.

Or objecting to people in a quiet coffee shop who absolutely hate you because you do not tell your screaming kids to pipe down.

Or just add your own. Just add what you object to. That will do. As long as you are a vaper objecter too. LOL.

But then I am not a pearl clutcher. Live and let live. As long as it's legal.

Soda - on what basis do you think those who object to vaping do so in order to look superior? IMO, those who resort to insult in a discussion are simply showing that they have no evidence or valid argument to support their point of view.

I object to vaping in enclosed spaces on the basis of evidence. I fully accept that it is not as harmful as smoking. However, I do not smoke and the current legislation allows me to avoid exposure to harmful levels of passive smoking.

The evidence shows chemicals and nicotine are released into the air and absorbed by passive vaping. There is currently insufficient evidence with regards to long term exposure to these. I would prefer to be able to avoid the potential risk.

By allowing vaping in enclosed spaces, the rights of the vaper are being put above the rights of the non-vaper in the same way it used to be with smoking.

Ecigs are Great, I love mine, they are not harmful but not everyone likes them

I don't think this is yet proven. There's not nearly enough evidence yet to work out whether ecigs are harmless or harmful

Why would someone feel superior for not vaping? More like feeling threatened. Why on earth do you suspect a sense of superiority is anyone's motivation? A different perspective on acceptable risk is all it is. A different point at which you decide that other people's inconvenience and discomfort outweighs another person's personal pleasure.

Hmm.

No evidence against vaping, feeling superior, typical.

But I am right about the clutching pearls brigade.

Did anyone answer about driving the kids to school and polluting all those around them yet. Or their polluting screaming kids in a cafe or other places, No didn't think so.

Back in your box so.

I don't drive my kids to school and there is masses of evidence that car engines running outside schools are genuinely harming children's health. Smoking used to be harmless, too, apparently... Sometimes you don't actually need years of research to know something is bad for you and those around you - the research is just there to quibble about just how bad it is.

Soda - your post makes no sense.

You have made no arguments in favour of allowing unrestricted vaping, have for some bizarre reason tried to correlate anti-vaping attitudes with inconsiderate behaviour, and insulted those who disagree with you. Hardly constructive.

There is evidence that, at the very least, suggests vaping should be prohibited in the same way smoking is UNTIL reputable, large scale, longitudinal research has been carried out. You may believe that the rights of vapers to vape wherever they like should take precedence over those who would prefer to avoid the potential risk of harm until more conclusive evidence exists. I don't.

10+ years is not sufficient for proper, large scale, longitudinal research, particularly as they have not been in common use for 10+ years. They were used by small numbers up until quite recently.

Where are the large scale, longitudinal studies for air fresheners, hairspray, deodorants etc.? New products arrive on the market every day without these studies. Should we be alarmed?

Your point on the risks of action vs inaction, while valid, presupposes that the rights of the smoker trump the rights of a non-smoker. In your list of risks you have ignored the fact that the long term impact of secondhand vaping cannot be known at this point, thus exposing bystanders may potentially be dangerous.

Vaping is not smoking. Risk assessment is to do with risk, not rights. If you want to talk about a balance of rights then the balance is between your right to avoid a tiny theoretical risk versus a smoker's right to use whatever means available to quit, and so avoid the well evidenced 50% chance of early death.

The CDC disagrees with your statement that young people who are vaping are already smokers. The US Surgeon General also believes exposure to vaping is bad for children. Both views based on research.

CDC study is discussed on p87 of the PHE report. They point out that CDC have failed to differentiate between ever use, occasional use and regular use. They also failed to acknowledge that over the period of the study, youth smoking prevalence continued to fall.

The Surgeon General's report is roundly demolished in detail here by Clive Bates, ex-director of ASH. He calls it truly terrible – a heady mix of emotive propaganda and a completely warped and one-sided account of the science built on a lack of insight into youth behaviors and no knowledge of the tobacco and nicotine market or its consumers. He's not wrong.

The general standard of ecig research coming from the US is absolutely shocking and is in large part responsible for the rapid growth of the erroneous belief that vaping is as dangerous as, or more dangerous than, smoking. It was this shift in beliefs, including amongst smokers, that motivated PHE to produce their report.

While e-cigs pollute the air less than tobacco products, they still release nicotine and particulate matter into the air. Other studies have shown that cotinine (our bodies metabolise nicotine into cotinine) can be found in the blood of passive vapers.

See p 64 of the report. They release approx 1/10 the level of nicotine as a cigarette but, because there is no side stream vape, actual levels are much lower. Cotinine levels in non-smoking, non-vaping partners of vapers were found to be about the same as you get from eating a tomato. PHE acknowledge that vaping releases some nicotine into the air but still conclude there is no cause for concern.

The 'particulate' thing is almost as funny as the popcorn lung rubbish (except neither are funny really as they scare smokers away from switching). When considering 'particulates' you need to think about whether they are solid or liquid because those will behave differently. You also need to consider the toxicity of the fine particles. If you are worried about 'particulates' as a blanket category, I hope you never boil a kettle or have a shower!

There's a very good discussion on the topic here, again by Clive Bates. There's also this article by Michael Siegel, which shows clearly how much bias there is in research in this area.

if vaping turns out to be dangerous to passive vapers, I am more at risk from vaping than smoking as I can completely avoid being in an enclosed area with smokers. I cannot do the same for vapers.

I'm not so sure about that, given that smokers' breath and THS on their clothing is now considered a health risk. Current evidence suggests you are at more risk from being near smokers after they have come in from having a fag than you are being around someone who is vaping indoors.

Therefore, until more conclusive evidence exists, why potentially put the health of non-vapers at risk in the same way as was done to non-smokers? Why not err on the side of caution by learning from the mistakes of the past?

But it's not 'in the same way' is it? Vaping is not smoking. There is no smoke. Second hand vape is far more like air fresheners, cleaning products, cosmetics etc. in terms of potential harm profile. I ask again, why are you not demanding large scale longitudinal studies for these products?

We've already discussed what 'erring on the side of caution' means. It means fewer smokers switch and so more of them die early. Around 96,000 preventable deaths each year.

@theymademejoin

Nothing anyone will say will make people like yourself leave your pearls alone.

Pencils has said it all for me anyway.

And I don't smoke or vape either.

Just think, when you spray anything in your home, be it polish, anti perspirant, cleaning stuff, whatever. Whiff of chemicals.

But maybe you just use water. Great.

There is evidence that, at the very least, suggests vaping should be prohibited in the same way smoking is UNTIL reputable, large scale, longitudinal research has been carried out.

No, there really isn't. Which is why PHE guidelines have suggested the very opposite. Why don't you take it up with them?

The PHE, when discussing vaping in the workplace state the following should be considered: making a clear distinction between vaping and smoking; protecting bystanders; avoiding exposure for children and young people; supporting individuals to stop smoking; and complying with smoke-free policies.

Unrestricted vaping does not protect bystanders or avoid exposure to children and young people. Limit it to particular areas. That way you protect everyone's rights.

They also state: While the long-term effect of e-cigarettes is unknown, and they are not completely risk-free, current evidence indicates that they are significantly less harmful than smoking tobacco.

Nobody disagrees that they are less harmful than tobacco. Nobody is suggesting they should be banned, just not allowed anywhere and everywhere.

I hate them. My DH uses one and while I prefer it to him smoking, the smell is vile and the noise goes through me.

I don't want vapour in my face as much as I don't want smoke in my face. It's been inside someone smelly mouth. No thanks. It's disgusting and rude - go outside.

Soda - at least pencil is making intelligent arguments.

But maybe you just use water. Great.

Nooo! Can't do that! Think of all those ultra fine particulates you get spraying water around the place. You'll be suggesting it's safe to boil a kettle next

The reason people have such an issue with vaping is very simple - it looks a bit like smoking. For years public health's main weapon against smoking has been 'denormalisation' and creating a 'spoiled identity' for smokers to shame them into quitting. They have deliberately worked hard to instill in the public consciousness the image of smokers as smelly, stupid, selfish, dangerous to be around litter louts who are a drain on the public purse, sad addicts, unattractive, unreliable employees etc. etc.

This strategy starts at the top with WHO. See for example their lovely poster - The Smoker's Body. It then trickles down to public health around the world. It's now apparently fine to .

So people have all these associations in their minds with smoking and it's hard for them to think outside that wrt vaping because it looks a bit like smoking - not enough that you'd confuse the two but enough to trigger the associations, before any rational thought kicks in on the topic. A lot of public health experts who now back vaping as a harm reduction tool have spoken about exactly this problem and how it took them a while to see past it when they first encountered vaping.

Ollivander I would not accept any of the things on your list in a hairdressers.

Totally agree Pencils. I was going to say that people think smoking is icky and vaping is like smoking, therefore icky. But you said it best!

theymademejoin you haven't even read the bare titles accurately, let alone any of the substance that comes underneath them. Goodness me, I've C&P'd enough of it!

protecting bystanders
2. Ensure policies are based on evidence of harm to bystanders
The evidence of harm from secondhand smoke is conclusive and provides the basis for UK smokefree laws. In contrast, international peer-reviewed evidence indicates that the risk to the health of bystanders from secondhand e-cigarette vapour is extremely low and insufficient to justify prohibiting e-cigarettes. This evidence should inform risk assessments.

avoiding exposure for children and young people
3. Identify and manage risks of uptake by children and young people
E-cigarette use is not recommended for young people and this is reflected in the UK’s age of sale and advertising restrictions. However, because adult smokers use e-cigarettes to quit smoking and stay smokefree, the products can help reduce children’s and young people’s exposure to secondhand smoke and smoking role models. In developing policies for child and youth settings, guarding against potential youth uptake should be balanced with fostering an environment where it is easier for adults not to smoke.

You are massively misrepresenting PHE's guidance and it's beginning to look deliberate. If you don't like their guidance take it up with them, don't just pretend it says something completely different.