Rank: Super forum user 
|
Been announced that advertising of e-cigs will be allowed on TV from 10th Nov.
This could open another can of worms.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
New rules allow the actual e-cig to be seen during the advert..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Why will it open a can of worms?
May be the health feaks/safety people/HM Government should stop telling people how to lead their own lives, if the products are judged legal - what concern is it of anybody else, if someone wants to buy/use them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Because many companies have banned their use..if they can be legally advertised the argument for banning them in the workplace may be weakened..
I personally don't really have a view or a care...I don't smoke..but I do know E-cigs have been a subject of debate within these forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
stonecold wrote:..if they can be legally advertised the argument for banning them in the workplace may be weakened.. Big deal. There's lots of alcohol advertised on TV, doesn't mean we tolerate it at work (unless you work in a pub or brewery).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
thanks for the professional and polite reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
TV advertising won't change our position at the moment; whether they are safe or not is only part of the reason why employers might wish to control them.
Ian, I guess one of the reasons I welcome the government 'telling people how to live their lives' is that they don't. Usually, all health messages are doing is adding a very small counter-current to the constant barrage of propaganda (a.k.a advertising) from the manufacturers/suppliers of things which have risks, but which are always presented as unalloyed benefits. The anti-nanny state crew never seem to take into account the massive power of advertising, or question the motives of the people selling toxic products. If the government, for example, hadn't told us that smoking was bad for us, and taken steps to reduce it, who would have? And how many lives would have been wasted? And, more importantly, for whose benefit?
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We have no intention of changing our rules in light of this announcement.
As has been pointed out alcoholic drinks are advertised on TV but we still have a ban on them on our site.
This is a non- issue. Nobody has a RIGHT to smoke these things whenever they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
A Kurdziel wrote:We have no intention of changing our rules in light of this announcement.
As has been pointed out alcoholic drinks are advertised on TV but we still have a ban on them on our site.
This is a non- issue. Nobody has a RIGHT to smoke these things whenever they want.
Everyone has the right to smoke real cigs or the e-cig. If you provide smoking facilities (as you should) then all workers have the RIGHT to use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rich, I believe A Kurdziel meant you can't just sit and vape whenever you want in the work environment- a lot of companies have designated smoking breaks etc. I'm not getting involved in this debate- e cigs etc are legal to use but its down to the employer how they treat this. Its worked ok for smoking and drinking, I don't see what's special about the e-cigs really
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Rich,
Employers are under no obligation to provide smoking facilities, and I have to agree with AK. Note that he did say nobody has the right to use these things whenever they want; that's kind of unarguable, when you're at work your time is not your own,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
jwk wrote:Hi Rich,
Employers are under no obligation to provide smoking facilities, and I have to agree with AK. Note that he did say nobody has the right to use these things whenever they want; that's kind of unarguable, when you're at work your time is not your own,
John I agree jwk, no one has the right to use e-gigs or real cigs whenever they like at work - but from previous debates on this forum most companies provide smoking facilities (and thus smoking breaks) which now include the use e-cigs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If E-cigs are eventually classed as harmless..(advertising is now allowed, so one would suspect they cant be that bad)
How would an employer stand for expecting e-cig users (harmless) to share a smoking shelter with smokers (harmful).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
stonecold wrote:If E-cigs are eventually classed as harmless..(advertising is now allowed, so one would suspect they cant be that bad)
You can't conclude that being allowed to advertise something means it must be harmless. Plenty of stuff is advertised and we don't allow it to be used in the workplace - alcohol, electric fires, chainsaws, sandwich toasters, bikinis, lawn sprinklers, I suspect the list is almost endless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
E cigs may well end up destroying society as we will become overpopulated due to the reduction in cancer. Or maybe there are far bigger fish to fry ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
F1 racing cars are advertised on TV but look what happened at the last Grand Prix, doesn't mean they are safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
FireSafety101 wrote:F1 racing cars are advertised on TV but look what happened at the last Grand Prix, doesn't mean they are safe. What an interesting point I had better not buy one then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Follow the money as there's billions involved hence the adverts will go on telly irrespective of the damage that such nicotine containing things may or may not do
The gov tell people what to do all the time - I personally am a fire arms person and note that last year in the Mersey-Side area alone e-cigs killed nine people which was far more than fire arms but I cannot have a fire arm without the strictest control yet I can have as many e-cigs as I want and I can even let babies (yep babies - I have researched the law and know what I am quoting!!) use them!!!! This advertising will set having good health back decades!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stonecold wrote:
How would an employer stand for expecting e-cig users (harmless) to share a smoking shelter with smokers (harmful).
And I see nobody has been able to answer this logical comment apart from "they are not proven to be harmful" - but forcing people who are trying to quit by using e-cigs into a smoking environment is clearly counter-productive. (a life-long non-smoker)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
colinreeves wrote:stonecold wrote:
How would an employer stand for expecting e-cig users (harmless) to share a smoking shelter with smokers (harmful).
And I see nobody has been able to answer this logical comment apart from "they are not proven to be harmful" - but forcing people who are trying to quit by using e-cigs into a smoking environment is clearly counter-productive. I don't think any employer anywhere forces e-cig users to use a smoking shelter with cigarette smokers. No-one has bothered to answer this 'logical comment' because it's not a logical comment, it's nonsense. No-one forces anyone (smoker, s-cigger or non-smoker) to go into any smoking shelter, as far as I have ever seen. Perhaps a straw poll is in order: Does anyone here have an employer that requires smokers to spend a certain amount of time in the smoking shelter each day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn
You misrepresent what I was getting at.
Current rules are that if anyone wishes to smoke they can only do so outside - if they want shelter then it has to be a shelter that meets the regulations. Most employers provide these.
From other threads, most safety people suggest that their employers require (force?) employees who wish to smoke to use these shelters.
To force people tho wish to vape to join tobacco smokers in these same shelters, as seems to be the majority view in this forum, this is forcing (correct use of the word) vapers and tobacco smokers into cl;ose quarters. This is surely counter-productive to those who are trying to give up smoking by using e-cigs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
colinreeves wrote:
From other threads, most safety people suggest that their employers require (force?) employees who wish to smoke to use these shelters.
And I (again) disagree. I have never heard of anyone being forced to use a smoking shelter. In my observations, only a minority of employers provide a smoking shelter, and none mandate attendance within it. There may be a very few that if the employee CHOOSES to smoke, they may only smoke in a defined location, but it remains employee choice. As such, basing an argument about e-cigs on the premise that e-cig users are 'forced' to congregate with cigarette smokers is nonsense, in my opinion. Presenting it as an unanswerable logical conundrum is even greater nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I always enjoy the E-Cigs debate-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:stonecold wrote:If E-cigs are eventually classed as harmless..(advertising is now allowed, so one would suspect they cant be that bad)
You can't conclude that being allowed to advertise something means it must be harmless. Plenty of stuff is advertised and we don't allow it to be used in the workplace - alcohol, electric fires, chainsaws, sandwich toasters, bikinis, lawn sprinklers, I suspect the list is almost endless. Wow! What sort of employer bans these things! A great mix I'd say -Alcohol, chain saws, sandwich toasters, bikinis( and maybe mankinis), and lawn sprinklers; sounds like a really groovy party! It’s the sort of thing that Richard Branson would promote in his company. Happy Friday
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn wrote:colinreeves wrote:
From other threads, most safety people suggest that their employers require (force?) employees who wish to smoke to use these shelters.
And I (again) disagree. I have never heard of anyone being forced to use a smoking shelter. In my observations, only a minority of employers provide a smoking shelter, and none mandate attendance within it. There may be a very few that if the employee CHOOSES to smoke, they may only smoke in a defined location, but it remains employee choice. As such, basing an argument about e-cigs on the premise that e-cig users are 'forced' to congregate with cigarette smokers is nonsense, in my opinion. would disagree. Since the smoking ban many employers provide smoking areas as required by the regs. I see these all the time on my travels around various workplaces. Of course no one can force any one to use them..but if a smoker has a choice of either use the shelter or don't have a cigarette for 8 hours which one do you think he would choose. This is especially true of the cheeky smoke break taken in work time as I do realize people may be able to leave the work site on a lunch break to smoke. Altough I have never met a smoker who only smokes at lunch! Presenting it as an unanswerable logical conundrum is even greater nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would disagree. Since the smoking ban many employers provide smoking areas as required by the regs. I see these all the time on my travels around various workplaces. Of course no one can force any one to use them..but if a smoker has a choice of either use the shelter or don't have a cigarette for 8 hours which one do you think he would choose. This is especially true of the cheeky smoke break taken in work time as I do realize people may be able to leave the work site on a lunch break to smoke. Altough I have never met a smoker who only smokes at lunch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Interesting stuff...the way I see it is that tobacco brings in good revenues (much of which funds the NHS). Daily I see more & more people quitting and taking up the e-cig.
Perhaps I am cynical, but there could be some truth in the fact that the government would like to permit the promotion of the product via TV ads to get more take up due to its addictive nature. Its a sure bet.
Why? In preparation for future taxation revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sitting here with an e-cig in hand reading this debate. Not sure what to make of it all, but I will say the evidence of harm by e-cigs is spurious. Especially when compared to the known risk of smoking real cigs. Moreover, nothing in this world is without some risk - are we to remove all voluntary risks in society? If so, let's ban drinking alcohol, bungee jumping, rallying, rugby, football...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As a digression from the main topic I guess that some forum users were puzzled by the reference at #1 to 'Been' the alleged announcer of the forthcoming advertising of e-cigs. Perhaps it's an abbreviation or an acronym! Also, perhaps I need either to get out more or stay in more! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
FireSafety101 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29527169
Is this proof enough of the harmful effects of e-cigarettes :-) :-( Unless I have misread the article it is about a cigarette factory closing down which manufactured real cigarettes not e-cigs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
stonecold wrote:I would disagree. Since the smoking ban many employers provide smoking areas as required by the regs. I see these all the time on my travels around various workplaces. Of course no one can force any one to use them..but if a smoker has a choice of either use the shelter or don't have a cigarette for 8 hours which one do you think he would choose. This is especially true of the cheeky smoke break taken in work time as I do realize people may be able to leave the work site on a lunch break to smoke. Altough I have never met a smoker who only smokes at lunch!
What regs. require an employer to provide a smoking shelter>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stonecold wrote:achrn wrote:In my observations, only a minority of employers provide a smoking shelter, and none mandate attendance within it. There may be a very few that if the employee CHOOSES to smoke, they may only smoke in a defined location, but it remains employee choice.
I would disagree. Since the smoking ban many employers provide smoking areas as required by the regs. I see these all the time on my travels around various workplaces. Of course no one can force any one to use them..but if a smoker has a choice of either use the shelter or don't have a cigarette for 8 hours which one do you think he would choose. This is especially true of the cheeky smoke break taken in work time as I do realize people may be able to leave the work site on a lunch break to smoke. Altough I have never met a smoker who only smokes at lunch! I don't understand where you are disagreeing. "Many" is not the same as "the majority". I don't dispute that many employers provide a smoking shelter. However, my observation is that this 'many' remains the minority. Only a minority of employers provide smoking shelters. Then I said (of employers) "none mandate attendance within it" and you say "Of course no one can force any one to use them". So that's agreement. As is the observation you make that it's the smoker's choice to use a smoking shelter. So I'm confused - what is it I said that you disagree with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was saying of course a employer cant force someone to use the shelter, but due to the fact smoking is a strong addiction a smoker will have no choice but to use it. I used to smoke and I can assure you its nearly impossible to go all day without a smoke...so if you really have to have a smoke because the craving is sending you funny you will have to use the shelter provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=colinreeves]achrn
You misrepresent what I was getting at.
Current rules are that if anyone wishes to smoke they can only do so outside - if they want shelter then it has to be a shelter that meets the regulations. Most employers provide these.
From other threads, most safety people suggest that their employers require (force?) employees who wish to smoke to use these shelters.
To force people tho wish to vape to join tobacco smokers in these same shelters, as seems to be the majority view in this forum, this is forcing (correct use of the word) vapers and tobacco smokers into cl;ose quarters. This is surely counter-productive to those who are trying to give up smoking by using e-cigs.
I'm with 'achrn' on this one. People must be responsible for their own action, if they wish to smoke either tobacco or e-cigs then they take the risks. They can also decide where they choose (outside and within the law) where they smoke/vapour, purely because there is a smoking shelter provided by the employer people can still choose where they want to smoke/vapor. The first case of an employee suing his employer because he was exposed to second hand tobacco smoke in a smoking shelter, will result in employers removing the smoking shelters altogether to prevent them being sued. Remember smoking shelters are not compulsory. However, there are other situation where this debate has merit. For examples a smoking room provided in a care home by the care provider. TBC.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Basic toxicology tells us that e-cigs are orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking. We do not of course know all the long term risks but to treat them as smoking is akin to banning seat belts in case they bruise your chest in a crash
Switching to e-cigs is almost as good as quitting all forms of nicotine, it is the smoke and tar that is dangerous not the nicotine at concentrations present.
We recently introduced a "vaping room" at one of our small manufacturing plants which was formerly our "smoking room" before the indoor smoking ban.
The consequence of this is that 6 of our smokers no longer smoke at work and 4 of them have quit smoking entirely. HR wished to treat them exactly the same as smoking but were persuaded that to class them exactly the same gives a very skewed message as to their relative risks and discourages smokers from making the switch.
The outcome of our policy for this relatively small site is that 4 of our employees ( hopefully 6 in due course ) have made the most important health decision of their lives, I fear that a more restrictive policy would have resulted in more early deaths, not less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Excellent post.
In respect of smokers and e-cig users most employers seem to "tar" them with the same brush ......
Okay, okay, I'll put my hat on and go home!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just have them use the shelter if one is provided at different times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.