Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Smoking at The Valley / e-cigarettes

124

Comments

  • dancafc said:

    I use my e cig at half time, outside the east stand, causing no harm to no one, got told to stop using it
    by a steward at the Cardiff game, how stupid is that ! will be more discreet now.

    I had the same told her to piss off and do a proper job like stop people actually blatantly smoking real fags
    Double Hard
  • True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, but because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I agree that e cigs are probably better to use than smoking a fag so good on smokers that make the switch. That does not detract from my point that for us non smokers that do not want to be exposed to either.

  • dancafc said:

    Iv not smoked for a year now been using an e cig ever since

    You have smoked for a year.
  • edited January 2015
    This could run and run.
    Lucky we have some medical experts on the forum.
  • True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Using a nicotine inhaling product probably is preferable to smoking (but not as giving up completely I'd add). I'd disagree that they are designed exclusively with smokers in mind though and would point to the use of flavourings like bubble gum, candy floss or Black Jack as evidence these things are marketed more widely than at those who already smoke. Do they really need a pretty blue light on them too or is this just another way of appealing to a younger market? I know what I believe.

    I agree that currently the percentage of users who were not existing smokers is currently small but from what I know of research carried out in the South West it is growing and I worry that their use will lead eventually to a reverse of the hard work put into smoking cessation over decades...

    mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GP1KS20140825?irpc=932
  • E ciggerettes don't make you look cool.

    That's the point I was making at the end of my post.
  • True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Using a nicotine inhaling product probably is preferable to smoking (but not as giving up completely I'd add). I'd disagree that they are designed exclusively with smokers in mind though and would point to the use of flavourings like bubble gum, candy floss or Black Jack as evidence these things are marketed more widely than at those who already smoke. Do they really need a pretty blue light on them too or is this just another way of appealing to a younger market? I know what I believe.

    I agree that currently the percentage of users who were not existing smokers is currently small but from what I know of research carried out in the South West it is growing and I worry that their use will lead eventually to a reverse of the hard work put into smoking cessation over decades...

    mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GP1KS20140825?irpc=932
    I'm a big believe in that you will never stop people from trying smoking, but I guess you can make it safer for those that do.
  • True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, but because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I agree that e cigs are probably better to use than smoking a fag so good on smokers that make the switch. That does not detract from my point that for us non smokers that do not want to be exposed to either.

    Do you drive?
  • edited January 2015

    True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Using a nicotine inhaling product probably is preferable to smoking (but not as giving up completely I'd add). I'd disagree that they are designed exclusively with smokers in mind though and would point to the use of flavourings like bubble gum, candy floss or Black Jack as evidence these things are marketed more widely than at those who already smoke. Do they really need a pretty blue light on them too or is this just another way of appealing to a younger market? I know what I believe.

    I agree that currently the percentage of users who were not existing smokers is currently small but from what I know of research carried out in the South West it is growing and I worry that their use will lead eventually to a reverse of the hard work put into smoking cessation over decades...

    mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GP1KS20140825?irpc=932
    I'm a big believe in that you will never stop people from trying smoking, but I guess you can make it safer for those that do.
    Patently that's a fact until such time as smoking is banned completely and even then there will be those that still want to give it a go. But smoking levels have been decreasing across most demographics for many years now and the battle was being won, to an extent. Short term these things may help existing smokers quit (juries still largely out on that anyway) but what we don't know is either the long term effects of their use or how many kids, who would otherwise not been interested, end up smoking fags because these devices appealed to them.

    Smoking in cars with children is about to be banned so I expect sales of e-cigs to increase yet further but that does not make them any safer or it any more socially acceptable to use them in public places. Imo.
  • True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, but because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I agree that e cigs are probably better to use than smoking a fag so good on smokers that make the switch. That does not detract from my point that for us non smokers that do not want to be exposed to either.

    Do you drive?
    Yes. 64 a day.

  • Sponsored links:


  • Jints said:


    Jints said:

    No real evidence as to the non harm of passive e cigarette exposure. Until then I don't want them anywhere near me just like the real thing.


    I see this argument all the time and it annoys me intensely. When did we go from banning things because it was demonstrated that they were harmful to banning things because there was no evidence that they weren't harmful? What next, screening to make sure you don't sit next to someone who has a cold? Nobody with badbreath allowed it because there's no evidence that stinky breath doesn't harm people in the general vicinity?

    There's tons of evidence. All eliquids are made of flavourings, propelyne glycerine, vegetable glycerine and nicotine. Each one of these ingredients has been extensively tested and none of them are dangerous even to those directly inhaling them. You are as likely to be harmed from ecig vapour as from vapour from the bovril being drunk by the bloke behind you.

    The market for e cigarettes is due to be flooded with cheap imitations fron ostensibly China. These products will no doubt work and will have undergone zero testing to see if what they emit is harmful. Straight question. Would you be happy for your child to sit next to someone who is smoking a e cigarette until that time when it is unequivocally proved that these things are safe ?


    Oh I forgot. Cold virus and bovril are not carcinogenic.

    1. The cheap imitations from China have been around for years. They are batteries, not eliquid.

    2. I do vape around my child with a 100% clear conscious. That's because I know (as in I am certain) that it is safe.

    3. Elquid is not carcinogenic. Nothing is set alight. That's why its called vapour rather than smoke. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you don't really know very much about the subject (no particular reason why you should, of course).
    Would you use one on a tube train or mind standing next to someone using one?

    What's the legal age for smoking? 16 ? Would you be comfortable with the 6th formers using them in the corridors of your child's school?

    If they do no harm, how would you feel seeing Solly using one in the on-pitch warm up?
  • No, no

    It's 18. That's up to the school but I'd advise any kid to avoid getting hooked on nicotine.

    I'ed be fine with it.
  • Spot the difference:

    image

    image
  • edited January 2015
    It's obvious that there are quite a few arguments surrounding e-cigarettes, namely:

    1) Is it detrimental for the user to smoke e-cigs?
    2) Is it detrimental for the people around you to smoke e-cigs?
    3) Do these 'consumer licensed' e-cigs actually only contain what's written on the packaging?
    4) Do e-cigs entice non-smokers (kids?) to potentially start smoking?
    5) Would you currently recommend a smoker to quit now, whilst being unsure of the risks, using e-cigarettes - or would you recommend proven, safe treatment via patches, gums and inhalation devices instead?

    Many of the news outlets meld these topics together and cause sensational headlines, apparently showing contradictory standpoints. In comparison to actual cigarettes, I'd be inclined to agree that e-cigs should be better for health. However, until such time that I know that there is at least an industry safety standard for e-cigarettes, how can I recommend these to you or anyone else for your health?

    Thankfully legislation will be here by 2016, when e-cigs will become licensed medicinal products. On that note, the government hasn't delayed anything - it's already all been announced.

    Also, anyone making conspiracy theories about tobacco companies creating propaganda against e-cigs - be sure to check out how the companies have branched out into e-cigs and related designer products.
  • Jints said:

    No, no

    It's 18. That's up to the school but I'd advise any kid to avoid getting hooked on nicotine.

    I'ed be fine with it.

    Why wouldn't you use one on a train ?
  • Perhaps being harsh as a non smoker but i really struggle to understand how someone can not go 2-ish hours without a cigarette of some kind
  • Perhaps being harsh as a non smoker but i really struggle to understand how someone can not go 2-ish hours without a cigarette of some kind

    I never had a problem with it when I was a smoker, but as there is an easily available solution there for those that can't - ie a fenced off outside area at half time as per the other clubs mentioned - why not just do it?
  • Firstly the use of E Cigarettes is against ground regulations whether you like it or not. It states that quite clearly in your Season Ticket Book, it is regularly mentioned in the programme and BDL has announced it at least four times this season pre match and at half time.

    The Club feels that smoking areas are difficult to steward. The East and Jimmy Seed Stands are quite straight forward , but both the North and West Stand are not so, with separate areas required for each tier and the possibility of 'infiltration' of away fans.
  • I suppose what they can do is introduce smoking areas in just the East and JS stands from next season, Addickted? Then those who are that desperate for a half time fag can buy their season ticket in the east (if it means moving stand and paying more, so be it - if you can afford to smoke you can afford a more expensive ticket) and the away fans are being treated the same as the home fans, so they can't complain about unfair treatment?
  • Perhaps being harsh as a non smoker but i really struggle to understand how someone can not go 2-ish hours without a cigarette of some kind

    I never had a problem with it when I was a smoker, but as there is an easily available solution there for those that can't - ie a fenced off outside area at half time as per the other clubs mentioned - why not just do it?
    Yes, they can go 2 hours without smoking - they just choose not to.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Yep. And fattys can't go that long without eating some crap from the kiosk blah blah blah

    Football especially charlton can put you through the wringer emotionally. What would a smoker do after a nerve jangling event? Possibly need/want a cig

    I don't agree with breaking rules and it's not nice for anyone to have to put up with smoke in the bogs etc. I don't get why not have a couple of areas outside then surely everyone would be happy
  • edited January 2015

    True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.

    Couple of points. If you already know the results of the studies going on into the safety of these devices you may wish to share them with WHO are not exactly fans of e-cigarettes telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/11056964/Ban-toxic-e-cigarettes-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html

    I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.

    Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
    You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

    There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.

    The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.

    However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...

    Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?

    Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Using a nicotine inhaling product probably is preferable to smoking (but not as giving up completely I'd add). I'd disagree that they are designed exclusively with smokers in mind though and would point to the use of flavourings like bubble gum, candy floss or Black Jack as evidence these things are marketed more widely than at those who already smoke. Do they really need a pretty blue light on them too or is this just another way of appealing to a younger market? I know what I believe.

    I agree that currently the percentage of users who were not existing smokers is currently small but from what I know of research carried out in the South West it is growing and I worry that their use will lead eventually to a reverse of the hard work put into smoking cessation over decades...

    mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GP1KS20140825?irpc=932
    I'm a big believe in that you will never stop people from trying smoking, but I guess you can make it safer for those that do.
    Patently that's a fact until such time as smoking is banned completely and even then there will be those that still want to give it a go. But smoking levels have been decreasing across most demographics for many years now and the battle was being won, to an extent. Short term these things may help existing smokers quit (juries still largely out on that anyway) but what we don't know is either the long term effects of their use or how many kids, who would otherwise not been interested, end up smoking fags because these devices appealed to them.

    Smoking in cars with children is about to be banned so I expect sales of e-cigs to increase yet further but that does not make them any safer or it any more socially acceptable to use them in public places. Imo.
    They ARE safer. That doesn't mean they are completely safe. And I don't care what's socially acceptable. Mostly because I don't care what other people think about what I like to do. That said I am respectful about where I use mine as I appreciate and accept that some people don't want to passive vape.

    By the way, in the context of this thread, I do not use mine in the football ground.
  • RanTooFar said:

    It's obvious that there are quite a few arguments surrounding e-cigarettes, namely:

    1) Is it detrimental for the user to smoke e-cigs?
    2) Is it detrimental for the people around you to smoke e-cigs?
    3) Do these 'consumer licensed' e-cigs actually only contain what's written on the packaging?
    4) Do e-cigs entice non-smokers (kids?) to potentially start smoking?
    5) Would you currently recommend a smoker to quit now, whilst being unsure of the risks, using e-cigarettes - or would you recommend proven, safe treatment via patches, gums and inhalation devices instead?

    Many of the news outlets meld these topics together and cause sensational headlines, apparently showing contradictory standpoints. In comparison to actual cigarettes, I'd be inclined to agree that e-cigs should be better for health. However, until such time that I know that there is at least an industry safety standard for e-cigarettes, how can I recommend these to you or anyone else for your health?

    Thankfully legislation will be here by 2016, when e-cigs will become licensed medicinal products. On that note, the government hasn't delayed anything - it's already all been announced.

    Also, anyone making conspiracy theories about tobacco companies creating propaganda against e-cigs - be sure to check out how the companies have branched out into e-cigs and related designer products.

    1) It's believed there is some risk though the extent is currently unknown.
    2) As above
    3) Unfortunately this is a grey area. I buy my liquid from a respectable British company that is very clear about what goes into theirs. Not all brands/suppliers are this way.
    4) The research suggests that kids are not taking up ecigs in quite the same way they take up cigarettes, so yes, but in very small numbers.
    5) I would recommend getting off cigarettes and on to a safer alternative now. Unfortunately vaping does not work for everybody so the individual has to find what works best for them. I have converted a number of people from cigarettes to vaping since I started 12 months ago. None of them have yet gone back to cigarettes. I haven't had a cigarette since I started either. More importantly I haven't once felt the need to.

    As I've already said, ecigs are a safer alternative to smoking. It is not something that you should recommend to kids, it's not something that is healthy (clearly) and there are health risks attached. The same is true of drinking alcohol and eating the wrong food of course.
  • Hex said:

    Perhaps being harsh as a non smoker but i really struggle to understand how someone can not go 2-ish hours without a cigarette of some kind

    I never had a problem with it when I was a smoker, but as there is an easily available solution there for those that can't - ie a fenced off outside area at half time as per the other clubs mentioned - why not just do it?
    Yes, they can go 2 hours without smoking - they just choose not to.
    Yes true. But what's wrong with giving them an option if they want a fag?
  • RanTooFar said:

    It's obvious that there are quite a few arguments surrounding e-cigarettes, namely:

    1) Is it detrimental for the user to smoke e-cigs?
    2) Is it detrimental for the people around you to smoke e-cigs?
    3) Do these 'consumer licensed' e-cigs actually only contain what's written on the packaging?
    4) Do e-cigs entice non-smokers (kids?) to potentially start smoking?
    5) Would you currently recommend a smoker to quit now, whilst being unsure of the risks, using e-cigarettes - or would you recommend proven, safe treatment via patches, gums and inhalation devices instead?

    Many of the news outlets meld these topics together and cause sensational headlines, apparently showing contradictory standpoints. In comparison to actual cigarettes, I'd be inclined to agree that e-cigs should be better for health. However, until such time that I know that there is at least an industry safety standard for e-cigarettes, how can I recommend these to you or anyone else for your health?

    Thankfully legislation will be here by 2016, when e-cigs will become licensed medicinal products. On that note, the government hasn't delayed anything - it's already all been announced.

    Also, anyone making conspiracy theories about tobacco companies creating propaganda against e-cigs - be sure to check out how the companies have branched out into e-cigs and related designer products.

    1) It's believed there is some risk though the extent is currently unknown.
    2) As above
    3) Unfortunately this is a grey area. I buy my liquid from a respectable British company that is very clear about what goes into theirs. Not all brands/suppliers are this way.
    4) The research suggests that kids are not taking up ecigs in quite the same way they take up cigarettes, so yes, but in very small numbers.
    5) I would recommend getting off cigarettes and on to a safer alternative now. Unfortunately vaping does not work for everybody so the individual has to find what works best for them. I have converted a number of people from cigarettes to vaping since I started 12 months ago. None of them have yet gone back to cigarettes. I haven't had a cigarette since I started either. More importantly I haven't once felt the need to.

    As I've already said, ecigs are a safer alternative to smoking. It is not something that you should recommend to kids, it's not something that is healthy (clearly) and there are health risks attached. The same is true of drinking alcohol and eating the wrong food of course.
    The answers you've given for 1) and 2) are the key reasons behind issues around e-cigs, other than allegedly promoting smoking to minors. This also means that e-cigs are excluded as a 'safe' option, mentioned in your number 5).

    Finally, Your answer to 3) is an assumption based on a position of your trust to a brand name - the legislation soon to come into force will mean that you won't simply have to take their word for it. The only real safe options are the licensed, medicinal products for smoking cessation - such as patches, gums, inhalators and the like - not e-cigarettes.
  • Someone's been on the MSN website a lot today
  • Obviously don't know for sure but more than likely a cheap Chinese import.

    If, like me, you use a reputable shop there doesn't seem to be any problems.
  • I'm not a smoker. I'm worse than that. I'm an ex-smoker, the self-righteous former addict, the nagging father. None of it worked! My eldest son (who along with me has a season ticket) got himself hooked on the cancer inducing poison called Tobacco.
    His soon to be wife, seems to have got him to move over to vaping. A move I wholeheartedly endorse. We don't yet know if there are risks with vaping, but we do know it's much,much safer than Tobacco.
    I wish every human would kick the smoking/vaping habit. But if pushed, I'd accept vaping as a substitute. Perhaps we need to show some tolerance to this new 'habit' ?
  • I hate them I'm a non smoker always have been so why should I have to put up with stinky machines smoking me out from either side all day at work
    They are as anti social as smoking is I really don't see why these are acceptable in the work place yet smoking is banned even in our works car parks
    Keep ur exotic stinky flavours to urselves
    I hate them


Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!