Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

274 replies

whoahokeycokey · 30/06/2017 10:25

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!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
sodablackcurrant · 30/06/2017 23:19

Ah roundabout,

It will all be decided for us by Big Government at the end of the day, so sit back, relax and wait for your nemesis.

It will happen and then you can sit back and feel so smug because you will have been proven to be right, but unfortunately for the wrong reasons.

It boils down to excise duties, or lack thereof now, doesn't matter that many have been saved from lung cancer and emphysemia. NO, it is all about money in the Exchequer and the diminishing returns from tobacco.

So next it will be vaping.

It must be so satisfying for you to be so perfect in every facet of your life to be so judgy. Nice that.

Huffletuff · 30/06/2017 23:22

There absolutely is a smell.

roundaboutthetown · 30/06/2017 23:26

But sodablackcurrant, you are the judgey one, calling people names and being as offensive as possible. I am just questioning the assertion that inhaling chemicals the lungs were not designed to inhale deeply is harmless.

roundaboutthetown · 30/06/2017 23:29

And of course vaping will have excise duties on it next if it becomes popular. Why wouldn't it? Tax pays for public services, whether or not the tax is on something supremely harmful to health.

sodablackcurrant · 30/06/2017 23:31

Roundabout,

Sorry if you think that. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't agree with it.

No offence intended, it is a general discussion. And on this site anything goes.

But if you would like to report me, please go ahead, I don't mind.

PencilsInSpace · 30/06/2017 23:35

Surely lack of regulation also increases the risk that people are vaping substances with toxic chemicals in?

We've got regulation Confused Eliquid is regularly tested for both ingredients and emissions.

What we haven't got is medicinal regulation because there is no point in doing stuff like making every puff on an ecig the same length or making every puff deliver the exact same amount of nicotine, or making every ecig fire at exactly the same temperature, every time. Regs like these, which you can't really have med regs without, would be counterproductive. Vaping would become as dull as fuck and innovation would move at a snails pace because everything would need to be tested to medicinal standards before it reached market.

Currently new tanks and batteries have about a 3-6 month cycle before a new version is released (often incorporating new safety features suggested and designed by vapers and which would never occur to MHRA, removed as they are from the world of everyday consumer products). Med regs would turn this cycle into 2-3 years for small modifications which common sense could tell us change nothing in terms of risk. We'd all still be stuck on some super safe version of cig-alikes if MHRA had had their way.

We'd have about 4 flavours available too because med regs are so much more onerous than consumer or even TPD regs. Before you start, these are food flavourings. You inhale them anyway in all sorts of situations. If you're the nervous sort (which you obviously are) make sure you don't stand next to anybody sucking a boiled sweetie. Clearly this shit is deadly.

Medicinal regulation would make vaping massively less attractive for no health gain. Fewer people would switch and so more would die. It would be a huge own goal for public health.

Why allow the widespread use in public spaces of something unregulated for which the long term health risks are largely unknown?

Oh I properly agree. The sooner we ban all those unregulated and untested cleaning and cosmetic products the better. Point me at the petition. I promise to share it without laughing.

As for public health in this country, it has been based on the premise so far that vaping is not going to become a trendy or wiedspread thing to do. If it does become trendy, you can guarantee it will become more regulated.

Seriously will you please do some reading? This could not be further from PHE's position. They would absolutely love every smoker in the country to switch to vaping instead. All 9 million of them. It would prevent so many early deaths and so much painful ill health and disability.

And young people who have never smoked are beginning to try it out for social reasons, and you have said yourself that e-cigarette use has increased hugely in recent years.

Oh come on, we've done this one already. Trying an ecig does not equal regular use. Vanishingly few adults or children who have never smoked are using ecigs regularly. Vapers are about 50/50 ex-smokers and people on their way to becoming ex-smokers. Yes, ecig use has increased rapidly in recent years. That's because it's enabling a fuckton of smokers to quit a habit that has a 50% chance of killing them. What on earth is your problem with that?

It is becoming an unsurprising thing to see and vaping shops have started opening up on town high streets. There is obvious, massive commercial potential in it as an industry.

How dreadful. Independent vape shops, largely run by vapers, are managing to make a living by helping smokers to quit and helping vapers stay of the fags. Again, what exactly is your problem with this?

I presume you can vape all sorts of things if you want to if it's also an unregulated industry.

Yeah, just like you can stick whatever you want in a rizla or your slow cooker or your Breville sandwich toaster. Would you like to ban spoons because some people use them to cook up?

You kind of drivelled off into bollocks after this point so forgive me for not addressing any more of the fascinating arguments in your post. It all looked like stuff we'd covered before anyway.

It doesn't really matter how much evidence I post, how many links I give you, how many reading suggestions. You won't look at any of them. You'll continue to throw your hands up and say we just don't know! and scrabble to find increasingly tenuous reasons why vaping is A Bad Thing, when in fact it could save tens of thousands of lives in the UK alone.

What I reckon is this: You can't quite get past the fact that vaping looks a bit like smoking, that we're enjoying ourselves, that we're not dying and we're not sorry.

Ollivander84 · 30/06/2017 23:39

I'm vaping milk biscuits with a cup of tea in bed Grin no bystanders except the cat though

roundaboutthetown · 30/06/2017 23:44

No, I can't quite get past the fact that I have to smell other people's e-cigarettes, tbh. You may enjoy the smell and the taste, I would rather not have it in every public space I go to. At least people don't sit opposite me in cafes spraying aerosol cleaners or deodorants every few seconds. As you have agreed, we already have more than enough chemicals wafting around us as it is. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

roundaboutthetown · 30/06/2017 23:47

Thanks for clarifying the medicinal regulation point, though. That makes more sense, now.

HereBeFuckery · 30/06/2017 23:48

Huffletuff your 'sensitive' stomach (have you seen a doctor for that?) is turned by the smell of mint? Okaaaaaaay.
Hey, guess what? My sensitive stomach is turned by the sight of wilful bloody minded stupidity and precious snowflakery of the 'well, I don't like it, so everyone else should listen up and somebody should do something' persuasion, so could you give it a rest now please? Cause, y'know, my human rights an' stuff.

PencilsInSpace · 30/06/2017 23:55

the lungs are no more designed to inhale glycerine, flavourings and nicotine than tobacco smoke

Your lungs weren't designed at all, they just evolved to cope with stuff better than your competitor's lungs. Lungs do actually cope massively better with a mixture of glycerine, flavourings and nicotine than they do with tobacco smoke or any other kind of smoke. In fact, glycerine, nicotine and flavourings have not been shown to cause any lung harm whatsoever (but well done for googling 'eliqid ingredients')

Obviously fresh air is best. I presume you live up a mountain somewhere?

And of course vaping will have excise duties on it next if it becomes popular. Why wouldn't it?

Maybe because tobacco excise duty is designed to offset the extra cost of healthcare for those who smoke and vapers don't cause any increase in healthcare costs so there is no justification?

Interesting which way round you phrased that question - Why wouldn't it. Surely the sensible way is to ask why would you impose an excise duty? Otherwise, tell me a thing you enjoy, I'll say why wouldn't you impose an extra punitive tax on it and you can waste your time justifying why it shouldn't be taxed. Good game, huh?

roundaboutthetown · 30/06/2017 23:56

The problem for vapers probably was the banning of cigarette smoking in public spaces. I would hugely prefer vaping to smoking if it were a choice between the two, but now we have been free from inhaling other people's cigarette smoke for some time, I find myself less tolerant of the idea of having new vapours inflicted on me and more inclined to think, if you can wait to smoke somewhere less public, why can you not also wait to vape somewhere less public? Why the need to increase atmospheric pollution in a public place?

roundaboutthetown · 01/07/2017 00:02

Calling it a punitive tax is just an excuse to tax something. It isn't an actual punishment, it's revenue raising. Governments spend a lot of their time trying to work out how to tax things and people and how to come up with reasons to persuade people to accept it. There's not a lot we are not taxed on, is there?

WomblingThree · 01/07/2017 00:09

I'd love to know where all these places are that vapers can vape indoors with impunity. Aside from vape shops, I haven't found one single place.

Ollivander84 · 01/07/2017 00:14

My local pub lets people vape inside

supermoon100 · 01/07/2017 00:15

Vaping is pretty gross, the smell is horrible

PencilsInSpace · 01/07/2017 01:05

The problem for vapers probably was the banning of cigarette smoking in public spaces.

No, because this happened in 2007 - a good few years before vaping began to take off in the UK. It is totally irrelevant. Most vapers don't want to be around cigarette smoke any more than the rest of you. The main problem for vapers is the constant stream of ill-informed opinions.

I would hugely prefer vaping to smoking if it were a choice between the two, but now we have been free from inhaling other people's cigarette smoke for some time, I find myself less tolerant of the idea of having new vapours inflicted on me

Again, why are you putting smoke and vapour in the same category? Smoke is chock-full of carcinogens. That goes for cigarette smoke, wood fire smoke, barbecue smoke or organic kale that has been set on fire. DON'T BREATHE SMOKE FROM BURNING STUFF Everybody agrees that is very bad for you.

Vape does not involve any burning unless it goes wrong (and yes we can tell very quickly when it's burning). The output from a vape is, as you say, glycerine, flavourings and nicotine. None of these are burnt, none produce the harm of smoke inhalation. All have been declared basically safe (disclaimer - PHE have said there may be up to 5% residual, theoretical risk, compared to smoking, for vapers, long term, based on the possible results of future longitudinal studies. They have also said this is a cautious figure. The likelihood is that the risk is less, not more).

if you can wait to smoke somewhere less public, why can you not also wait to vape somewhere less public?

We've done this one already too.

The way nicotine is absorbed from a cigarette and from vaping are completely different. A smoker can hoover up a fuckton of nicotine in a few minutes and then be fine for an hour or two.This incredibly fast absorption is the main reason that smoking is so addictive.

Nicotine absorption through vaping is much gentler and slower. It needs more frequent topping up, especially in the early days when new vapers are having to try hard not to smoke. A couple of drags every 15 minutes is normal. It's not practical or helpful to expect vapers to conform to smoking patterns. Breaking that pattern also helps vapers move away from smoking because so much of the addiction is based on psychological triggers.

Why the need to increase atmospheric pollution in a public place?

Why the need to create such a giant, out of proportion fuss about vaping? Atmospheric pollution is a major issue. Why not focus on the main causes of harm, which are all linked with combustion in one form or another?

roundaboutthetown · 01/07/2017 02:13

The focus is merely the result of this thread. You do make good points. A lot of my distrust is probably linked to a personal dislike of the sickly smell and imagining all pubs, clubs, hairdressers, surgeries and restaurants smelling of it. I presume it also does not linger in the atmosphere and on fabrics in quite the way cigarette smoke did, though?

What are the statistics on people who have successfully given up smoking this way, because I only know people who both smoke in private and vape in public, rather than having successfully quit both or either?

twelly · 01/07/2017 05:40

Firstly when you go to the hairdressers you know what chemicals and smells will be there, this is not the case with vaping. I think that the same regulations should apply to vaping as to cigarettes, they are a substitute, those who vape choose to do so, those who are near them do not choose to passively vape.

timeforabrewnow · 01/07/2017 06:03

A short while ago, I would have thought the OP was being a bit over the top - like - 'so what, vaping is fine'

Until.... I sat on a train for 3 hours last week(boxed in as it were) behind a lady who was vaping away. I felt like I was breathing in her moisture/yuck from her - Not Nice. Totally sympathise with the OP

Just to point out that on the same journey, a large drunk man came and sat next to me and was breathing alcohol fumes over me (he'd drunk a lot) and that was more gross. When he started belching and singing, I got up and moved to the next carriage...

JustGettingStarted · 01/07/2017 06:14

There are ways of vaping so that no vapour is exhaled.

And there are two types of vaping. The high power vapes make massive clouds.

n0rtherrn · 01/07/2017 06:26

You can smell her e-cig, she can smell your hair dye. You're pretty equal!

^^Hmm

It's a hairdressers.

Nobody should vape in places where smoking is not permitted.

makeourfuture · 01/07/2017 07:37

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

There is no evidence of this.

makeourfuture · 01/07/2017 07:39

My understanding that the lungs are no more designed to inhale glycerine, flavourings and nicotine than tobacco smoke

Designed? Where are you guys getting this stuff?

roundaboutthetown · 01/07/2017 08:34

makeourfuture - there is no evidence of reputable, long scale, longitudinal research, or no evidence of the need for it?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread