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!

I don't have a problem with people vaping round me anywhere ,the smell only last a second and there are worse smells in the world.
I hate when your at the hairdresser and someone who's just been out for a cigarette touches your hair and breathes on you with fag breath. Same as sitting next to someone with perfume that isn't to my liking. I wouldn't pull a face or moan about it, even if it does set off my allergies.

Your not going to get Ill of vape and you could have moved seats, if it the smell was really bad you couldn't cope
Yes I agree that if you wouldn't smoke inside somewhere maybe not vape but it's doing no harm to anyone as like I said there are worse things in the world.

And I think maybe people should look into what vaping is before they go on and on about chemicals blah blah blah
More things you eat everyday are full of crap that can kill you more than someone's vape cloud

A couple of drags every 15 minutes is normal. 😳 Not a couple of drags a minute then PencilsinSpace? Oops 😉

My understanding that the lungs are no more designed to inhale glycerine, flavourings and nicotine than tobacco smoke. Huh? Lungs are "designed" for breathing. Unless you are actually dead, you are breathing, therefore they are fulfilling their design brief.

Lungs are designed to help the body get oxygen from the air, not for people to deliberately inhale something other than air. The lungs are also not designed to inhale water. Or asbestos fibres. Or cigarette smoke. It is adding to already polluted air more things for the lungs to have to cope with, so I don't think it should be accepted without question and without research. Clearly I am not the only person to think this, as organisations, including Cancer Research, are researching it. Why the opposition to checking it is as safe as vapers currently think? It is legitimate and sensible to question the safety of the air that we all have to breathe. I can accept that the lungs and the rest of the body, as it's a quick route to the bloodstream, may be able to cope with the chemicals in e-cigarettes relatively well without significant long term damage (if long term research proves this) and can already accept they are significantly less harmful than cigarette smoke, but don't claim the lungs are designed to inhale glycerine and other chemicals which do not contain oxygen. The less polluted the air around us, the better for everyone's health.

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?

ASH estimate that out of the 2.9 million adults in the UK who vape, 52% are ex-smokers (1.5 million), 45% are still smoking (1.3 million) and 3% are never smokers.

Additionally, 6.1% of ex-smokers used to use an ecig but no longer do and over a third of this group said they had used them as part of a quit attempt.

Using the ONS data sets that ASH used:

Population estimates
Adult Smoking Habits

... we can work out that there are 13,166,625 ex smokers (24.7% of the 16+ population)

6.1% of them used to use an ecig = 803,164
over 1/3 of that group said they used it as part of a quit attempt = 267,721+

So, adding up the number of ex smokers who currently vape (1.5 million) and the number of ex smokers who used an ecig to help them quit but who no longer vape, we get over 1,767,721 successful UK quit attempts from vaping (roughly )

Most people don't switch all at once. It's usual for people to 'dual fuel' for a while, slowly cutting down the number of fags they smoke. Sometimes this stage can last a long time - DH took a whole year to drop the last fag of the day.

Some people are not interested in quitting smoking and are vaping just to cut down or, as you say, to vape where they can't smoke. This at least means they are smoking less and so is a valid harm reduction strategy.

Smokers who vape, and especially those who vape daily, are more likely to make a quit attempt than smokers who don't vape. There is also the never before seen phenomenon of smokers quitting 'by accident' - i.e. they try vaping with no intention of quitting smoking but just find it better and quit without really trying.

Why do people say it doesn't smell when it clearly does?

I don't have a particularly sensitive sense of smell but I can definitely smell vape fumes.

Especially those massive clouds that some vapers think it's fine to blow in your face as you walk past because it's not cigarette smoke is it?

I don't want to walk through town breathing in people's second hand vape smoke.

And yes, I'm perfectly aware I don't live on a mountain in the perfect fresh air etc etc blah blah.

round - I loved smoking, 30 a day and I started smoking age 12. I actually never thought about quitting but I was reading the stop smoking section on here (no idea why!) bought an e cig and did 24hrs. Then thought well I would be daft to smoke now. That was 14 months ago

My Dad died of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Talking to the doctors about what could have caused it (the idiopathic part of the name means cause unknown) and he told us that our lungs are not designed to breathe in anything other than air. He said any factor/contaminant that my Dad had come into contact with could have been the trigger. He went on to say how worried he was about vaping since the research wasn't yet old enough to know the true outcomes and how he feared IPF would become more common in the future.

So no I would not be willing to sit next to someone vaping where I was breathing it in and I believe years from now we will see vaping in a different light to how many do at the moment.

I think you're the only one claiming lungs are 'designed' at all!

Why on earth do you think we are against research? I spent most of yesterday posting links to it. Most of us are against shockingly bad research like the formaldehyde study, the popcorn lung thing, the particulates thing, the surgeon general's report and the guff that is coming out of WHO. Some of us have helped crowdfund research in the past because of the lack of relevant, good quality, unbiased studies in this area.

You'll be aware from the links I posted yesterday that Cancer Research are fully behind PHE's stance. Here is CRUK's statement on vaping:

We support ‘light touch’ regulation of e-cigarettes, to ensure product safety and consistent dose, restrict marketing that risks re-normalising smoking, and stop them being sold to children. At present, we do not believe there is enough evidence to justify an indoor ban on e-cigarettes.

It is important that adequate protections exist to stop the promotion of e-cigarettes to young people and non-smokers. We must also ensure that the tobacco industry’s investment in e-cigarettes does not provide them with an opportunity to influence health policy.

There are a range of unanswered questions about the likely impact of these products on individuals and effective tobacco control policies, which is why we have established the UK E-cigarette Research Forum with Public Health England (PHE) and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS), and why we are increasing our investment in e-cigarette research.

Ollivander84 well done!

Trb17 I'm sorry about your dad but really that is the most evidence-free scaremongering I have heard for a long time!

Just rtft and applaud you pencils on your knowledge and articulation on delivering facts.

I am an ex-smoker turned vaper and did it because I was sick of everyone moaning at me about smoking. And for aesthetic reasons. And lastly, for health. Probably the wrong order but there you go, and I have been vaping now since January instead of smoking 25 a day.

The facts outlined by you have been a real eye-opener and that information should be more readily available. I wish they would make posters in Drs waiting rooms/Tain stations/general public places with these facts on to inform everybody better and help cut some confusion about vaping being akin to smoking.

But meantime, thanks for taking so much time to attempt to enlighten people yourself. You've enlightened me!

PencilsInSpace - I'm not claiming you are against research. Those I have an issue with are the posters whose knee jerk response to perfectly legitimate concerns about air pollution and lung disease is to claim it's OK, because we could die in a nuclear meltdown, or it's OK because the air is already polluted with worse crap than e-cigarette vapours, or to pretend it's not worth responding sensibly to concerns because they don't understand what designed is supposed to mean. I do have an issue with you arguing over my use of the word "designed" when referring to the lungs, however - it does not take a genius to work out what I mean by this, so I think you are being deliberately and unnecessarily provocative, there. The lungs are there/designed to help the body get oxygen, which is essential to human life. Nicotine is not essential to human life, nor are any of the other chemicals in e-cigarettes. If these chemicals cause harm to the long term ability of the lungs to obtain sufficient oxygen from the air (what the lungs are there for/designed to do), then we should not be inhaling them. No need to quibble over the choice of wording, surely, unless you disagree that the lungs of many people are already coping poorly with current levels of manmade pollution?

It shouldn't be a requirement for every vaper to have read extensively, understood all the studies, know which are about valid theoretical concerns and which are pure propaganda. That's why we have bodies such as PHE who can give people the simple clear message that vaping is around 95% safer than smoking and poses no apparent risk to bystanders.

Posters are saying vaping is fine and they are correct.

Meanwhile public health bodies are increasingly alarmed that perceptions are changing and the number of people who wrongly believe that vaping is as dangerous, or more dangerous than smoking is rising each year. If smokers believe this they will not switch. Half will die early.

Spreading ill-informed BS about vaping does actual harm and is far more irresponsible than just accepting the advice that vaping is fine without ever looking any deeper.

Our lungs were not designed, they evolved. Probably we have never had totally clean air to breathe. There will always have been dust and pollen and stuff. Certainly over human history we have as a species inhaled more than our fair share of wood smoke. Individuals with lungs that coped better with pollutants would have survived longer and left more descendants. Those with lungs that did not cope well with pollutants would have died early. This is how evolution works. Lungs oxygenate the body and rid it of excess CO2. They have also evolved mechanisms to cope with pollutants. What do you think scillia and phlegm are for?

None of that is any reason to be unconcerned about our worsening air quality. All our lungs have their limits and the most vulnerable are already suffering badly. Really though, focusing on vaping as a cause of poor air quality is a bit daft and will save no lives. We all know the problem is traffic and industry.

HereBeFuckery

Huffletuff your 'sensitive' stomach (have you seen a doctor for that?) is turned by the smell of mint? Okaaaaaaay.

Yes I have. I am a celiac, I have Crohns and other gastric issues. Yes my stomach is turned by my DH's mint vapour, the smell of toothpaste on people's breath, people eating mints etc. 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.

Maybe you should see a doctor about that.

PencilsInSpace - I am not spreading ill informed bullshit, I'm asking questions. I question the sanity of those not interested in asking questions and checking the source of where the answers come from. Clearly it is what you have done, too. We have been told plenty of harmful things are fine over the years. Sorry if I won't comply to the opinion that we should accept everything inflicted on us without question! And if exisitng smokers are put off vaping because of scare stories which they cannot be bothered to research, yet continue to smoke, despite knowledge of the facts, then I think they are the ones with a serious problem with the way they think, not those who ask for proof before something they have no need of is waved in their face by people who aren't interested in asking questions.

Ps where is the evidence that more people think vaping is dangerous now than they did a few years ago? I thought you said the number of people using e-cigarettes was increasing rapidly?

I am not spreading ill informed bullshit, I'm asking questions.

Oh yeah, you haven't linked to any of the dodgy studies or reports, I'll give you that. Nevertheless, you have spent pretty much all your time on this thread spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt with your 'questions'. Your very first post suggested that any research that found vaping not to be harmful was not to be trusted.

Then we had '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', then 'My fear is, the promises about the safety of vaping are a bit like the promises about diesel cars.' and 'I guess we'll just have to find out the hard way how harmless or harmful it is.' and 'of course, making it appealing eventually appeals to non-smokers and it can become fashionable like smoking was' and 'those people who do not want to breathe in other people's vapes have to wait for 50 years for the proof that inhaling something unnecessarily is actually harmful for non-smokers' then a reference to 'a contaminated e-cigarette product that harms the user' and 'We don't know how significant the risk would be from a massive increase in social vaping in public spaces.' and 'Why allow the widespread use in public spaces of something unregulated for which the long term health risks are largely unknown?' and 'young people who have never smoked are beginning to try it out for social reasons' and 'Who knows what's coming out of the unregulated ends of e-cigarettes and even if the user knows what's in them (unlike the passive vaper), who knows as of yet exactly how safe they are to inhale? It really is not that long ago that even doctors told patients that cigarettes were good for clearing the chest.' and blah blah blah.

You haven't linked to anything because you haven't bloody read anything, including the PHE and ASH links I have repeatedly provided. If you had, you'd have come across the evidence on changes in harm perception and why it's now a research priority for public health. Here we go again:

ASH:

Between 2013 and 2017 the perception of harm from e-cigarettes has changed. A growing proportion of the public and smokers fail to recognise that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking. In 2017 only 13% of adults correctly identified that e-cigarettes are a lot less harmful than smoking compared to 21% in 2013. In addition, the proportion of the adult population thinking that e-cigs are as harmful, or more harmful, than smoking nearly quadrupled from 2013 to 2017 from 7% to 26%.

People who are currently using e-cigarettes are more likely to have accurate perceptions of harm. Among all those who are currently vaping (smokers and ex-smokers) 49% accurately identify that e-cigarettes are a lot less harmful than smoking.

However, the poor understanding among smokers in general about the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared to smoking is of concern. In 2017 the proportion of smokers who said they did not know whether e-cigarettes were harmful relative to smoking was almost at the same rate as it was in 2013 (29% in 2013 and 28% in 2017). In addition, the proportion of smokers who think e-cigarettes are just as, or more, harmful than smoking has increased significantly from 9% in 2013 to 22% in 2017. Over this period evidence has grown about the relative safety of e-cigarettes when compared to combustible tobacco.

Smokers who have never tried e-cigarettes are less likely to accurately believe they are a lot less harmful than tobacco smoking than smokers who are currently using e-cigarettes. Among smokers who have never tried an e-cigarette 1 in 3 (30%) believe e-cigarettes are more or equally harmful as smoking. This is a view that has grown over time among smokers who have not tried an e-cigarette with 25% holding this opinion in 2016.

Pics are from ASH.

The PHE report discusses ASH's findings, along with similar findings from countries around the world (see chapter 8 - yes, there's a whole chapter dedicated to the topic). They conclude:

Although the majority of adults and youth still correctly perceive EC to be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, there has been an overall shift towards the inaccurate perception of EC being at least as harmful as cigarettes over the last year, for both groups.

Policy implications
- Clear and accurate information on relative harm of nicotine, EC and tobacco cigarettes is needed urgently.
- Research is needed to explore how health perceptions of EC are developed, in relation to tobacco cigarettes and NRT, and how they can be influenced.

You don't really need to read anything though do you, because you're not interested in any answers or 'checking sources'. You can read fuck all and still endlessly churn out your FUD-inducing 'questions'.

You are part of the problem and it would be good if you could stop it.

And if exisitng smokers are put off vaping because of scare stories which they cannot be bothered to research, yet continue to smoke, despite knowledge of the facts, then I think they are the ones with a serious problem with the way they think, not those who ask for proof before something they have no need of is waved in their face by people who aren't interested in asking questions.

So having embarked on what looks like a very deliberate campaign of 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' despite having done no research yourself, and having completely ignored the reputable studies and reports you have been given, you are now attempting to blame smokers for not being 'bothered' to research and not being 'interested in asking questions'

Smokers and vapers are constantly bombarded with the sort of doubt-inducing 'we just don't know' rhetoric you seem so fond of. Add in all the seriously biased bad science and the irresponsible press reporting around vaping and is it any wonder they are left not knowing what to think? And frankly, I don't care if some smokers and vapers can't be bothered to read up for themselves. I don't care if some of them can't read at all. Their lives and health are worth just as much either way.

I'm not finding any more links for you. You can do your own research from now on, and if you say 'we just don't know ...' I will say well of course you don't, you haven't read anything.

Why the opposition to checking it is as safe as vapers currently think?

Because there is absolutely no doubt how much damage is being caused by the alternative. Smoking is the single biggest health issue globally, with millions of people suffering major illnesses or premature death every year as a direct consequence. Why would anyone want to prohibit the first viable alternative just on the remote off-chance that it might turn out to not be 100% safe? Especially when none of the ingredients have any prior history to suggest they might be harmful. It's akin to refusing to let victims of a serious car crash get in an ambulance in case it crashes too. Actually, it's worse than that because at least there is evidence that ambulances do sometimes crash.

Vaping has been around for about a decade. It poses a massive threat to two of the most powerful and ruthless industries on the planet. The tobacco industry, who obviously see it as a direct competitor, and the pharmaceutical industry who realise the threat it poses to their ridiculously profitable and embarrassingly inefective NRT portfolios. These two industres have done everything in their power to get vaping outlawed. They've lobied governments and used their influence on health regulatory agencies, they've funded anyone they can find willing to run a study or trial that might prove any kind of negative health implication. They've thrown everything they have at it and come up with nothing that stands up to scrutiny. Yet sadly they've still managed to get it seriously restricted, mainly by feeding misinformation to fools.

I tell you what. Go and visit some of your local hospitals, clinics and GPs surgeries. It won't take you long to lose count of the number of people suffering from smoking related illneses. Many of them will be terminal. Then spread your net as far and as wide as you like and tell me how many cases of vaping related illness you can find on record. Barring the occassional muppet doing something stupid with a battery, you will be lucky to find any at all and certainly none that are conclusive. How long exactly do you want to wait before you might be prepared to begrudgingly accept there is no known significant harm? How many 100s of 1000s of smokers are you prepared to sacrifice before you would allow them ready access to a far safer alternative?

Yes, I'll admit to being lazy and asking you to provide the research for me. However, you have made me feel less dubious about the safety of e-cigarettes than I was at the start of the thread, so I fail to see what your problem is, tbh. I expressed my fears and doubts and cynicism and you, mostly, provided reassurance. Where you are not reassuring is when you try to shut people down. I will not be told I am not allowed to have fears, ffs.

And don't tell me I am prepared to sacrifice smokers. I'm just not prepared to sacrifice myself for smokers - they are the ones who chose to smoke in the first place. I didn't ever force a cigarette into their hands. Hence why I was delighted by the ban on smoking in public places and why I want to know how safe vaping in public places is.

My 'problem' is that despite all the research I have provided, you have continued to spread doubt and uncertainty as if I had posted nothing at all!

I'm not trying to shut you down and of course you're allowed to have fears. I am politely asking that when you have those fears, you go and do some research, or at least pay attention to the research that has been found for you, instead of remaining willfully ignorant while persistently spreading your fears far and wide with no heed to the harm you might be doing.

Excellent post HerOtherHalf

Where the fuck have I continued to spread doubts and fears?! I thanked you for clarifying why it did not make sense for e-cigarettes to be medicinal products. I agreed it is beyond doubt that vaping is safer than smoking. I agreed that it was likely a large part of my inclination towards doubt was because I personally loathe the sickly smell - ie that personal dislike made me more inclined to want to doubt things. And I said that most of what you posted reassured me. Yet again and again, you keep suggesting I should shut up and stop spreading fear, so again and again, I have to object to you having the fuckingncheek to tell me I'm not allowed to express my concerns.

Effectively, all we have been arguing about for several hours is whether I was justified to have concerns and fears which I wanted to have allayed without people attacking m for having them in the first place.

Most of us started as children, roundaboutthetown. I was 12.

Given that, and given how incredibly addictive smoking is, it's a bit pointless talking about 'choice' in this context. We have made a choice though, to switch to something massively less harmful to us and those we are around.

I'm just not prepared to sacrifice myself for smokers and Hence why I was delighted by the ban on smoking in public places and why I want to know how safe vaping in public places is.

See, this is what I'm getting at. You're doing it again. Have you read the PHE guidance yet? Or their joint statement with all those other PH orgs? The evidence report? Maybe you've read the CRUK policy statement? There's a big section in there on why a vaping ban is not justified. They are all telling you vaping is safe to be around. Why on earth do you think you are being asked to sacrifice yourself?

Maybe you could say which bits of the research and guidance you have a problem with and why. That would be helpful. What exactly do you think they have got wrong?

There you go again. I have read the research. I know it is not currently thought that public vaping is a health issue for non-vapers. None of that makes all the fears I expressed illegitimate or scaremongering. It is not paranoid or wrong for someone to ask whether something someone else is forcing upon them is bad for their health and whether you should have to put up with it. You keep trying to tell me that is unreasonable and I will keep repeating that it is a reasonable question. I was happy with your answer to it hours ago, just not happy with the way you refuse to accept questioning, doubt and fear is acceptable.

It is unreasonable to fear ghosts. There is no shred of evidence that they exist.