MPs are saying that vaping is acceptable in public places !

Since when have they been the authority on "unregistered and unlicensed" items that the public can buy, if they are then they must ban them in the UK...

These items are harmful and contain:

Flavours, propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, amounts of toxins, carcinogens, heavy metals, metal nanoparticles and "other substances" .....

There is far more research in the public domain showing how harmful and dangerous - FIRE HAZARD, they are, than those offer them as an alternative to that "nasty smoking"

GPs cannot be forced to issue these unlicenced and unregistered products on presecription..  that is criminal

What is the "IOSH" view?

Fire Services are reporting on a regular basis of incidents involving vaping equipment (allegedly "real" and / or "fake) or not..   A "CE" mark means nothing as there is so many items which are "Fake" making it to the UK market and not stopped from being exposed to the Public domain

These items should be banned completely and I feel that the only interest of MPs must be that they are Dirtectors or Board Members of  the manufactures?

I'd also like to see this "research".

Also, what litter problem like cigarettes?

Yes, can find all sorts of bull using Google, post link to a reputable research paper or two.  Not asking for 700.

Only fires I've heard of are from idiots modifying the battery.

Edited by user 24 August 2018 10:23:04(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

and then we can ban everything else research says is bad for us. Latest report is no such thing as a safe level of alcohol intake.

But, FWIW, we have banned alcohol consumption in the workplace - haven't you?

The MPs intervention had a fairly glaring non-sequitur buried within it - they seem to have accepted that vaping was only 5% as harmful as smoking, but overlooked the fact that 5% as harmful as smoking is still many times more harmful than not vaping, and that harm falls on the would-be passive vapers trying to work alongside.

We banned smoking in the office years before it was illegal.  I'm confident we will be maintaining our ban on vaping in the office even if it is explicitly legal (just as we ban various other sorts of other legal behaviour - like playing music, operating deep-fat-fryers and downloading movies).

 Space invader- the litter I was reffering to was the packaging which seems to be repelled by waste bins. also around here many vapers seem to spit, a seperate but still repellant problem.

Refernce fires- I know of two small fires  at my previous workplace that were identifiedby the fire section as being down to charging units  for E ciggarettes, a couple of others were suspected of being caused by them.

Actually, I never banned smoking in my office. I just had a sign that said: "If you can smoke without polluting the air I breath, then go ahead."  I take the same view of vaping. Why should I have to inhale the output of this device without any choice?  And who will take the responsibility if it is allowed and then in, say, five years we have cases of respiratory disease/cancer as a result? After all, no-one with responsibility for the decision seems to be saying that it is provde to be harmless.

Chris

There is no activity that does not carry some risk. If, vaping is only 5% dangerous as smoking then it is a sensible risk reducing option. At the end of the day, grown up people should be allowed the choice of whether they wish to partake in a risky activity, as long as it does not affect others.

Meanwhile, with knife and gun crime, drug taking and general anti-social behaviour on the increase vaping hardly registers on my richter scale.

The current state of play in the UK is that vaping indoors is not illegal but that most employers have chosen to ban it when the legal ban on smoking was introduced.  There is no RIGHT to vape in law ie it is still the employers right to choose whether vaping in permitted on their premises.

The report by the MP (which has no legal status; it just what this group of MP think) seems to have taken a lot of the medical profession by surprise.  Many public health people are wary of vaping as there is very little clear evidence as to what the actual health risk is, and they would on the whole prefer a precautionary approach (ie a ban or restrictions it until there is evidence it is safe). Remember this is a recent innovation; twenty years ago none of these products existed. Neither tobacco nor alcohol would pass any sort of modern public health evaluation process; they are available because they have been available for centuries and getting rid of them would be very problematic.

It could be that the MPs are interested in the possibility that vaping can be used to discourage cigarette smoking but this needs to be balanced against the potential health issues of vaping. On thing that struck me from the report was the suggestion that “snus” a Swedish oral tobacco product should be legalised in the UK (it is banned throughout the EU apart from Sweden) A report from PHE noted that although “snus”  is  much safer than cigarettes  because it does  not pose any real risk of  lung diseases including lung cancer it “ has a risk profile that includes possible increases in risk of oesophageal and pancreatic cancer, and of fatal (but not non-fatal) myocardial infarction…”

A strange product for the MPs to be supporting. Perhaps they are not as unbiased as they would like us to believe.

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

There is no activity that does not carry some risk. If, vaping is only 5% dangerous as smoking then it is a sensible risk reducing option.

Not for bystanders.  It's an unwelcome risk-increasing situation for non-smoking non-vaping bystanders.  That's the point that seems lost on the pro-vapers - it doesn't reduce risk for these people. 

The choice is not between making staff breathe cigarette smoke and and making them breathe vape vapour, so the assertion that the vapour is 5% as harmful as the cigarette smoke is irrelevant - it sets up a false dichotomy.  The choice (in workplaces at the moment deciding on whether to ban vaping on the premises) is between allowing staff to force their workmates to breathe vape vapour and not allowing it.  In that scenario, not allowing it is the risk-reducing option.

Or are you maintaining that breathing vape vapour is less risky than breathing air without vape vapour in it?

To be fair to Rayrap, he does say "as long as it doesn't affect others" and I have to agree, if people want to fill their lungs with this product and they do it without others having to breathe it in then fill yer boots.

The point is, the activity should be treated in the same way as cigarettes imo, take it to the smoking shelter where the only other people that may be affected is other people who don't mind destroying their lungs. (unless there are any smokers out there who object to vaping????)

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

There is no activity that does not carry some risk. If, vaping is only 5% dangerous as smoking then it is a sensible risk reducing option.

Not for bystanders.  It's an unwelcome risk-increasing situation for non-smoking non-vaping bystanders.  That's the point that seems lost on the pro-vapers - it doesn't reduce risk for these people. 

The choice is not between making staff breathe cigarette smoke and and making them breathe vape vapour, so the assertion that the vapour is 5% as harmful as the cigarette smoke is irrelevant - it sets up a false dichotomy.  The choice (in workplaces at the moment deciding on whether to ban vaping on the premises) is between allowing staff to force their workmates to breathe vape vapour and not allowing it.  In that scenario, not allowing it is the risk-reducing option.

Or are you maintaining that breathing vape vapour is less risky than breathing air without vape vapour in it?

We all agree that smoking is harmful and causes a great deal of suffering to those who smoke, and those who do not (NHS costs for a start). So following the logic of this thread it should be banned, FULL STOP, not restricted but ban the manufacture and selling of tobacco products. Make it illegal to smoke.

We all also know that work causes many accidents, fatalities and long term health problems so best ban that too. Can't have anything in the world that may cause harm afterall.

Once this is out of the way we can then concentrate on banning anything that we feel does not have a positive effect on individuals and society. So lets ban vapes, sugar, salt, contact sports etc. Then we can move onto anything that makes us people. So we can get rid of gender, religion, race, nationality etc. Next we need to get rid of the barrier of language so lets introduce a common global language.

Once we have achieved this we will have a world of bland, non-descript, joyless, risk free individuals, nirvana for some, hell for others.  

Signed: an ex-smoker and non-vaper

Originally Posted by: andybz

It is very disappointing to hear safety people saying something should be banned because it is a hazard, with no objective review of the risks, or more importantly the risk vs benefit.

#14.  I would say most industrial activities are unnecessary, so that argument does not stack up.  I don't need a car, but it is very nice to have one etc. 

Current we have a ban on our campus. We have no intention of lifting that ban: our campus our rules our ban.  Nothing to do with legislation. As I said nobody has a right to vape.

Originally Posted by: Charlie Brown

(unless there are any smokers out there who object to vaping????)

Some don't like the smell (some flavours are quite obnoxious).

Still waiting for;

Originally Posted by: trebor123

These items are harmful and contain:

Flavours, propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, amounts of toxins, carcinogens, heavy metals, metal nanoparticles and "other substances" .....

There is far more research in the public domain showing how harmful and dangerous - FIRE HAZARD, they are, than those offer them as an alternative to that "nasty smoking"

Fire Services are reporting on a regular basis of incidents involving vaping equipment (allegedly "real" and / or "fake) or not..   A "CE" mark means nothing as there is so many items which are "Fake" making it to the UK market and not stopped from being exposed to the Public domain

I've been looking for vape waste and can say that I haven't seen one used coil, coil packet or liquid bottle lying about.  Few hundred thousand fag ends but no vape waste.

Of course the easy option is to ban things, that's why 'elf and safety often (but not always) has such a bad perception within society. I have always perferred manging risk than to adopt a blanket ban.

Personally, I am sick to death of reading reports which claim all and sundry is bad for you (chocolate but hey not dark chocolate, alcohol but not red wine, etc) then the following week/month another report comes out it's not bad for you!

The bottom line is most things are a low risk in moderation. However if you choose to over indulge, then that's your choice...at least for the present.   

Edited by user 29 August 2018 12:23:06(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Apologies (possibly) to a very occasional contributor to these Forums - previous postings April 2012, July 2015, March 2016, May 2016 - but thread looks like the work of a troll.

It's certainly generated some interesting debate, some venturing in the Zero Harm is Achievable direction.

Does anyone think that second-hand vape vapour in the open air is going to make one iota of measurable difference to levels of pollution in the air in most conurbations in the world including most in the UK?

As regards littering, I pick up dog poo; also plastic bottles, drinks cans, and the packaging from sweets, crisps, and products sold in well known chains of take-away foods on a daily basis. Can see the difference when the local secondary school pupils return from their holidays. Shall we ban pets (or their owners), and various comestibles (most of which have well documented health downsides)? Shall we ban the shops that sell these comestibles?

Continuing on the litter theme, see lots of cigarette butts and cigarette packaging (and sometimes pick up the latter), but yet to see any real evidence to suggest that vapers are adding to the problem.

What undesirable constituents are put into Trebor mints?

Please don't answer my QQ unless you've got something to say that would be recognised as falling within the general scope of these Forums - the world of work - continuing this thread just risks feeding the trolls.

Please no answers or comments!

A Kurdziel- if you do not want any answers or comments DO NOT post on a forum???????

I think many employers and public places are taking the stance that vaping, like smoking, should not be allowed inside buildings or in the workplace and that you shouldn’t make those that vape stand with the smokers as in theory those that vape are the ones trying to quit smoking. 

If legislation comes in then it should state that the employer needs to provide a separate area to vape away from the smoking area.

From a moral side, I don’t think you shouldn’t vape in front of children, the same as i don’t believe you should smoke in front of children.

E- cigarettes shouldn’t be allowed to be used in entertainment centres and holiday parks and, if it was a nightclub and someone was using a real cigarette it could be easily confused and if you assumed it was a e-cigarette then there is a risk of prosecution.

My personal opinion is that they are less offensive than real cigarettes and although we can’t be sure what harm they may do long term, i believe they are less harmful to others if they were to passive vape but may be causing longer term health problems to the e-cigarette user.  

Tough basically ban these items..  there are some weird replies here !!!  are these people just smokers hiding behind their screen of smoke !!

Simple - a ban and do it now..  this country is too soft to those who choose to smoke and harm themselves and others..  

Banned indoors here, treated as cigarettes. Smoking is still anti-social and unnecessary, not to be done in work time, if employees/contractors/visitors want to smoke on their breaks they can use the smoking shelter provided. 

Even if it is pronounced legal and safe to smoke them inside/at work by the governement, we wont be allowing them in work time indoors because it's unprofessional, unnecessary, distracts from work if nothing else, has oral contact which could lead to cross-contamination of products, ingestion of chemicals etc and ill health, and even if it's only 5% AS BAD as smoking cigarettes it's still NOT GOOD.