Wales to ban e-cigarettes in public places

[Aepervius]

I see Propylen Glycol in those ecig ? Hasn't this been connected to anemia ?

ETA: never mind google says () only in cat

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Who is "they" and "their" strategy? The Welsh Assembly?

Do you think the Welsh Assembly collects tax on e-cigarettes?

This discussion and the citations range far beyond the Welsh Assembly.

In the US, the panicky rhetoric emanates from agencies that derive their funding, at least in part, from taxes on tobacco and from the tobacco master settlement.

In Washington State where I live, a bill has been introduced to slap a 75% tax on e-cigs. I posted a link above in the thread. The sponsor admits that a key goal is to patch the revenue leak as people switch from tobacco to e-cigs.

This is about money. The worst nightmare of all these paid anti-smoking zealots is that the tobacco industry will fade away and be replaced by a much safer alternative. They are fighting tooth and nail to make sure as many people as possible continue to choose tobacco over e-cigs. Failing that, they want to tax e-cigs the same as tobacco, even though the best evidence to date strongly suggests they are nowhere near as dangerous.

 

[angrysoba]

This discussion and the citations range far beyond the Welsh Assembly.

In the US, the panicky rhetoric emanates from agencies that derive their funding, at least in part, from taxes on tobacco and from the tobacco master settlement.

In Washington State where I live, a bill has been introduced to slap a 75% tax on e-cigs. I posted a link above in the thread. The sponsor admits that a key goal is to patch the revenue leak as people switch from tobacco to e-cigs.

This is about money. The worst nightmare of all these paid anti-smoking zealots is that the tobacco industry will fade away and be replaced by a much safer alternative. They are fighting tooth and nail to make sure as many people as possible continue to choose tobacco over e-cigs. Failing that, they want to tax e-cigs the same as tobacco, even though the best evidence to date strongly suggests they are nowhere near as dangerous.

None of this applies in this case.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'll cite what I want. If catsmate1 can post random stuff so can I, as I said just balancing things up. Why your picking on my post I cannot say.
Take a look at "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" in the Harm Reduction Journal if you want, they answer most of the questions normally asked but I'm sure you won't like their stuff either.

You were the one that introduced unattributed quotes as "credible" sources. Why you think these are credible is left unsaid, or why they are particularly more credible or are useful rebuttals to the evidence already given. Plagiarism catches my interest. Sue me. Your vague accusation of bias against an article you are only just referencing is silly.

 

[Lowpro]

So I read this in Gizmodo

http://gizmodo.com/study-some-e-cigs-put-out-tobacco-like-levels-of-carci-1571501156

First let me say I am an e-cig user and I even made a thread here about how they helped me quit smoking (more than a year and haven't touched a cigarette =D) so I consider myself a fan of them by far. I also was slightly involved in the statistical analysis of two studies at my university involving e-cigarette usage (none of my analysis will be published, I was just privy to the survey statistics) so I know a bit about the trends but cannot say anything about the results. The Gizmodo thread is regarding the formaldehyde formation from the propylene glycol evaporation at higher heat (something suspected years before) but doesn't say the concentration and ingestion. Formaldehyde's major environmental carcinogenic factors were related to occupational hazards and the classic "new trailer home" respiratory illness. I'll be interested to see what may come of this "discovery" however as far as FDA regulation goes there's not much they should say. The formaldehyde formation is out of their hands since it's a product of from the user. But as far as e-cigarette proponents saying there's no exposure to carcinogens found in tobacco, they're right about most of that in many instances, wrong about it in a few. I like what the Gizmodo article says at the end about whether being exposed to smoke or "vape" it's safer to take "vape" however between either and clean air, take clean air.

Now, I will also say that I love nicotine; I like to joke and tell people that I'd sprinkle nicotine on my corn flakes every morning for breakfast given the chance. I loved smoking tobacco. I loved to sit outside on my porch and read while smoking cigarettes or go outside of my lab for a smoke break. Those were good times. I still have them with e-cigarettes and if they are outright banned then...well I am not going back to tobacco but I'll start using the gum again (I hate the gum but I used it whenever I was travelling and still keep some around for occasions where I know e-cigs aren't copacetic). There are people who don't like the vapor and I think that's fine. If someone tells me to stop vaping I will, or I'll go outside. I'm used to that from smoking tobacco anyways so it's never been a big deal (unless it's cold outside...that sucks). People shouldn't have to be exposed to my habits, be it smoke, vapor, my internal monologues about people, my disgust for European Soccer etc etc. At the same time I don't want it to go from my location of the habit to the habit itself. As dumb as smoking tobacco is I wouldn't ban it (even if that's obvious), rather I'd minimize it where prudent.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Still waiting for the evidence that e-cigarettes have an impact on other people's health.

Likewise.

I have a personal dislike for the smell of some of them but I'm assuming there is no health risk to me - indeed we still allow Brut to be sold so it is clear that noxious smells are not enough to get something banned.

As for diesel exhaust ... I guess they'll ban large trucks next.

I saw someone smoking an e-cigarette on the subway here a couple of months ago. My first reaction was surprise--you can't do that! Then I was amused at my reaction, and then I kind of wanted to **** her.

You'd have probably wanted to do that regardless of what she did or didn't smoke.

I am not at all convinced that e-cigarettes* are anywhere near as harmful as real cigarettes or that they act as a gateway drug. It all seems far more like a witch hunt against anything at all associated with smoking rather than based on actual evidence of the risks.

If you ingest nicotine without the harmful effects of smoking a cigarette, how is it any different from caffeine?

Will they be coming after your tea, next?

"First they came for the cigarettes,
But as I was a non-smoker so I did nothing
Then they came for the e-cigs ... "

 

[Multivac]

Cool. I'll let you know where to send the money.

 

[Multivac]

Ten bucks says you have no idea what that means, only what you think it means...

Perhaps you can tell me what you think it means, and how that is different from what you think IT mean.

Then you can send me the money, or donate it to a charity.

 

[Lowpro]

Perhaps you can tell me what you think it means, and how that is different from what you think IT mean.

Then you can send me the money, or donate it to a charity.

Nope, the bet is on you not me.

 

[Cuddles]

If you ingest nicotine without the harmful effects of smoking a cigarette, how is it any different from caffeine?

It's a different drug. Just because you avoid the harmful effects of setting fire to it and inhaling the smoke doesn't mean there can't be any harmful effects from the drug itself. Caffeine and nicotine act in completely different ways, caffeine has a much higher LD50, and there is a lot of evidence suggesting that nicotine probably is carcinogenic on its own. Plus nicotine can be absorbed through the skin, so while it's fairly difficult to overdose on either through normal use, nicotine is much riskier for accidents (spilling liquid for an inhaler on your skin, for example).

That doesn't mean I think nicotine should be banned. It's simply that it has different effects and risks from any other drug, so you can't just declare that it must be the same as caffeine, or anything else for that matter.

 

[drelda]

Hi,

This gives some interesting info on nicotine - particularly about the potential benefits of it, and he argues that the dangers are very limited. I've no idea about the credibility of the author - but there are lots of references to real science throughout - so I'm sure people here will have an opinion on the validity of his conclusions.

http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine#performance

- Drelda

 

[The Don]

The debate - at least as reported by the BBC - moves on.

According to this story researchers have issued an open letter asking the WHO not to place so many restrictions on e-cigarettes.

An opposing group claims that the only ways to control smoking is to increase prices and restrict access.

So far this thread has taught me that the risk from nicotine itself is small but that there may be different risks associated with e-cigarettes including the switch from e-cigarettes to cigarettes.

Going back to the OP, I still don't understand the risk to third parties of people smoking e-cigarettes. To me, those who are against e-cigarettes seem to be basing their objections on the use of e-cigarettes on philosophical grounds rather than scientific evidence. A lot of the comments relate to the perils of nicotine addiction but if nicotine itself is comparatively benign and a safe delivery mechanism exists then I don't understand the objections.

That isn't to say that I don't think the production and distribution of e-cigarettes should not be regulated but that this regulation makes e-cigarettes a much more attractive option than cigarettes.

 

[Tolls]

There surely isn't (as implied by that open letter) enough data to show whether e-cigs actually have the problems that some are associating with them.

The idea that it may act as some sort of gateway to real cigs seems to have been plucked out of thin air.

 

[Cuddles]

There surely isn't (as implied by that open letter) enough data to show whether e-cigs actually have the problems that some are associating with them.

The idea that it may act as some sort of gateway to real cigs seems to have been plucked out of thin air.

Indeed. Unfortunately there seem to be two threads on this in different sections. The most recent evidence that I posted in that one once again says the exact opposite of the alarmist claims:

Smokers who use e-cigarettes to quit are more likely to succeed than those who use willpower alone or buy nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches or gum, a study suggests

However, lead researcher Prof Robert West, one of the UK's leading experts in this field, said: "E-cigarettes could substantially improve public health because of their widespread appeal and the huge health gains associated with stopping smoking."

And he added: "Some public health experts have expressed concern that widespread use of e-cigarettes could 're-normalise' smoking. However, we are tracking this very closely and see no evidence of it.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Wisconsin inadvertently left a dandy loophole for us e-cig users. The anti-smoking legislation specifically mentions "burning, holding or inhaling or exhaling smoke from a lighted cigar...cigarette... pipe...or other lighted smoking equipment".

No burning or lighting, no problem. They've left it (for the time being) entirely up to the owner of the business to allow vaping or not. They're even looking to make it OK whether the business owner likes it or not.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/..._opposite_approaches_to_e-cig_regulations.php

 

[RemieV]

Sooo... Could someone who uses e-cigs please PM me, as I'm in the market and I don't know what I'm doing.

 

[Beerina]

It doesn't produce dangerous second hand smoke. And people want to ban it? Just cause it looks like a cigarette? Where's that topic about smokers being unfairly stigmatized? This looks like an obvious example where someone isn't even allowed to look like they are smoking.

It looks like cigarettes, which have been a profitable meme vector to re-election for politicians for years now. It should not be surprising some are giving it a whirl.

 

[fnarrr]

Just to tie things up nicely, at a recent Welsh Government debate on ecigs (14th May) Mark Drakeford, Health Minister, stated there was "mounting evidence" to support his proposed ban on ecigs. When Assembly members asked him to provide said evidence all he could come up with, two weeks later, was one single paper by Stanton Glantz.
The one where he states "e-cigarettes are not associated with successful quitting in general population-based samples of smokers" in direct contrast to Prof Robert West's recent study which states that "those using e-cigarettes were 60 per cent more likely to successfully give up than people using over the counter nicotine replacement products, like gum or patches". From a study of 5,863 smokers in England, which you could say is a "general population-based sample(s) of smokers".
I know who I believe but hey, each to their own.

 

[The Don]

Just to tie things up nicely, at a recent Welsh Government debate on ecigs (14th May) Mark Drakeford, Health Minister, stated there was "mounting evidence" to support his proposed ban on ecigs. When Assembly members asked him to provide said evidence all he could come up with, two weeks later, was one single paper by Stanton Glantz.
The one where he states "e-cigarettes are not associated with successful quitting in general population-based samples of smokers" in direct contrast to Prof Robert West's recent study which states that "those using e-cigarettes were 60 per cent more likely to successfully give up than people using over the counter nicotine replacement products, like gum or patches". From a study of 5,863 smokers in England, which you could say is a "general population-based sample(s) of smokers".
I know who I believe but hey, each to their own.

My highlighting....

Even if this was the case, who harm does it present to third parties - after all protecting third parties is what the ban is all about - increasingly this sounds like legislation fueled by dogma.

 

[GlennB]

My highlighting....

Even if this was the case, who harm does it present to third parties - after all protecting third parties is what the ban is all about - increasingly this sounds like legislation fueled by dogma.

Yes, and meanwhile less harm is being done to the e-smoker. I can only imagine they're trying to maximise the stigma.