Not the normal e-cigarette post, but highlighting that we (the country) are apparently going to get some control over what's in the vapours: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/NewsCentre/CON288102

"All nicotine-containing products (NCPs), such as electronic cigarettes, are to be regulated as medicines in a move to make these products safer and more effective to reduce the harms of smoking. "

I think we (my company) will retain the ban on their use in workplace.

Mine is.

If I say to you "here, breathe this vapour in, we've got no idea and no control over what's in it", do you really think that has no health or safety implications, and declining to do so would not be based on any risk management principles?

My thoughts are as below;

https://www.gov.uk/smoking-at-work-the-law

"Smoking is not allowed in any enclosed workplace, public building or on public transport in the UK."

Defintion of smoking;

http://oxforddictionarie...nglish/smoking?q=smoking

"Definition of smoking

noun
[mass noun]
the action or habit of inhaling and exhaling the smoke of tobacco or a drug:the effect of smoking on health".

Definition of smoke;

http://oxforddictionarie...definition/english/smoke

"1 [mass noun] a visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air, typically one emitted from a burning substance:bonfire smoke"

Would a vapour from a e-cig class as a visible suspension of other particles???? I would say yes.

Defintion of vapour
http://oxforddictionarie...efinition/english/vapour

I can't see the confusion really. Or am I missing something.

achrn,
You say passive smoking is not a personal choice... I agree, that was my point about bars etc. And there was, in my opinion, a duty on employers to try and control the risk.

But is there a passive smoking risk with e-cigs? Not as far as I can determine.
Passive smoking risk was about
- products of combustion - there is no combustiond with e-cigs
- inhalation of tars, organic porducts etc - are there any from e-cigs?

Phil

I personally find the arguments for workplace prohibition rather weak. There are myriad of personal belongings, perfumes, lotions etc. etc. used and applied by employees in the workplace with the potential to release trace compounds (including NRT sprays).

Prohibition of e-cigarettes on the basis of "unknown release" (via a trace amount of vapour) is IMHO wholly disproportionate. Yes, the devices need regulation for supply and quality wrt medicinal standards, however I would otherwise suggest employers should at least tolerate them in the meantime (as per gum, sprays, patches, etc.) as an accepted NRT and in support of employee's efforts to give up the really harmful stuff - tobacco.

As a purely jocular aside, could this topic be described as inducing "a fit of the vapours" in some people?!! :-)

I remain astonished that zimmy , damelcfc, et al would be quite happy to breathe in the vapours of an unknown liquid which is subject to no statutory control. I'm not.

I also fail to see the logic that says if it's not a real cigarette it must (sorry, "MUST") be less harmful than a real cigarette. I think you'll need to run that past me again. Lots of things are not a cigarette, does it really follow that they must all be less harmful than a cigarette?

Over the years a glass of wine has been good for you, bad for you, good for you, bad for you, I think it's good for you again this week? It's not too long ago that asbestos was gods gift to the building industry. As with most things, the potential harm/health benefits (who know's it could be found to be good for you yet) of e-cigarettes probably won't be known until 30-40 years down the line. Personally I've never smoked a real one so have no intention to have an e-one either. As for banning them in the workplace, if it's discretionary than I'd go down the route of treating it exactly the same as a standard cigarette, purely to avoid any blurring of rules/sense of injustice from other smokers.

Diesel fumes do cause cancer. Do we still use diesel engines?

zimmy, I think you are alone in a world of banishers.

I have always argued (even before getting into h&s) that people with colds and flu viruses should not come to work. Spreading their germs amongst others, albeit unintentional, is not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere. However, I have never banned anyone with a cold from coming into work.

Given the option of sitting next to someone using an e-cigarette or sneezing and coughing I know which one I would choose.

Have to be honest achrn, my view is biased as I am a very heavy smoker but, my point is vapour (minuscule amounts) v smoke. I believe it MUST be less harmful to both user and more to the point the bystander from a dilute and disperse model/argument - even being we cannot hand on heart say exactly what the 'vapour' is (well I don't know) - its not going to be the same as combustion of tobacco.

There will always be people (and this is now not directed at anyone in particular) that will cover the whole spectrum of chain smoker through to absolute hate it like the single worst thing on earth (an ex-smoker lol) so the subject will always be emotive.

Fact is their here to stay. PROBABLY should not be used in the workplace and widely will be prohibited on corporate image grounds anyway but they do have a place in society for whatever reason people have navigated to them and hey, at least they don't make the non-smokers complain of clothes smelling of smoke when you have been near anyone 'vaping'.

ps Tried one on a recent flight and could not wait to get off the other end for the real thing - each to their own!

Diesel fumes and the products of welding can cause harm, however, there are a few reasons why we allow this in the workplace.
1) There is research and there are workplace exposure limits based on science and we work to these
2) Engines and welding add value to our lives by powering equipment/transport and joining things together
3) Whilst there are issues with welding and the internal combustion engine, they have benefited human kind
4) You need to weld or use diesel at times other that outside of work or on your lunch break in a designated area

Do e-fags or fags in general fit these criteria?

Ian

The problem is that E-Cigs at the moment are unregulated, meaning that we don't know what goes into them, previous research has identified some carcinogens in some models, and the nicotine delivery can be variable. Important to consider when nicotine itself can be poisonous. Other research has identified as E-cigs as being less harmful as they contain 0.1% the carcinogens of tobacco. Clearly there is potential here for something relatively beneficial.

The problem for me, and the reason this topic needs scrutiny as the government intends, is that quality control at the moment is unregulated. Most of the contents are essentially similar to what you would find in an Asthma inhaler, that's great but you can't be 100% sure. Once they are regulated, and taxed, then great, the quality is assured in that the contents aren't harmful, and as far as I'm concerned people can use them anywhere they like.