ChatterBank1 min ago
Should Electronic Smoking Be Included In The Ban?
45 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From the BMA document:
A 2008 review by the World Health Organization (WHO) does not exclude the possibility that the ecigarette
could be useful as a smoking cessation aid, but concluded that no rigorous, peer-reviewed
studies have been conducted showing that the e-cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement
therapy.16 There is evidence that e-cigarette products are highly variable in the efficacy of their
vaporisation of nicotine,b,17 and that the labelling of nicotine levels may be inconsistent and misleading.18
An analysis of the total level of nicotine generated by e-cigarettes which vaporise nicotine effectively
found that the amount inhaled from 15 puffs was lower compared with smoking a conventional
cigarette.b In 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released results of an analysis
of some e-cigarette products.18 The analysis found that the e-cigarette cartridges contained carcinogens
and toxic chemicals.
The tests also suggested that quality control was inconsistent or non-existent:
• cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff
• one high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice the amount of nicotine compared to a nicotine
inhalation product approved by the FDA.18
They conclude:
Stronger controls are needed on where e-cigarettes can be used in order to:
• protect others from being exposed to e-cigarette vapours. While the concentrations of the
constituents of these vapours (propylene glycol, glycerine, flavouring substances, and nicotine)
are lower than with smoked cigarettes, 'passive vaping' has been found to occur with the use of
e-cigarettes.20,21,22
• ensure their use does not undermine existing restrictions on smokefree public places and
workplaces, by leading people to believe it is acceptable to smoke. Of particular concern to BMA
members is their use by patients, visitors and staff in hospitals and other healthcare settings.
Exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes (either directly through their use by an individual or
indirectly from the vapours they produce) may adversely impact on patients, such as those with
heart or circulatory conditions, and their use may also become a source of conflict between staff
and patients. Similar concerns exist in other settings, such as the use of e-cigarettes on airplanes.
• ensure their use does not undermine the success of conventional tobacco control measures by
reinforcing the normalcy of smoking behaviour in a way that other nicotine containing products
do not.23 This specifically relates to the way these devices commonly resemble tobacco cigarettes,
in terms of appearance, nomenclature and the way they are used, as well as features such as
flavouring and styling that are potentially highly attractive to children, and may include cigarette
brand reinforcement.
And I agree.
A 2008 review by the World Health Organization (WHO) does not exclude the possibility that the ecigarette
could be useful as a smoking cessation aid, but concluded that no rigorous, peer-reviewed
studies have been conducted showing that the e-cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement
therapy.16 There is evidence that e-cigarette products are highly variable in the efficacy of their
vaporisation of nicotine,b,17 and that the labelling of nicotine levels may be inconsistent and misleading.18
An analysis of the total level of nicotine generated by e-cigarettes which vaporise nicotine effectively
found that the amount inhaled from 15 puffs was lower compared with smoking a conventional
cigarette.b In 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released results of an analysis
of some e-cigarette products.18 The analysis found that the e-cigarette cartridges contained carcinogens
and toxic chemicals.
The tests also suggested that quality control was inconsistent or non-existent:
• cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff
• one high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice the amount of nicotine compared to a nicotine
inhalation product approved by the FDA.18
They conclude:
Stronger controls are needed on where e-cigarettes can be used in order to:
• protect others from being exposed to e-cigarette vapours. While the concentrations of the
constituents of these vapours (propylene glycol, glycerine, flavouring substances, and nicotine)
are lower than with smoked cigarettes, 'passive vaping' has been found to occur with the use of
e-cigarettes.20,21,22
• ensure their use does not undermine existing restrictions on smokefree public places and
workplaces, by leading people to believe it is acceptable to smoke. Of particular concern to BMA
members is their use by patients, visitors and staff in hospitals and other healthcare settings.
Exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes (either directly through their use by an individual or
indirectly from the vapours they produce) may adversely impact on patients, such as those with
heart or circulatory conditions, and their use may also become a source of conflict between staff
and patients. Similar concerns exist in other settings, such as the use of e-cigarettes on airplanes.
• ensure their use does not undermine the success of conventional tobacco control measures by
reinforcing the normalcy of smoking behaviour in a way that other nicotine containing products
do not.23 This specifically relates to the way these devices commonly resemble tobacco cigarettes,
in terms of appearance, nomenclature and the way they are used, as well as features such as
flavouring and styling that are potentially highly attractive to children, and may include cigarette
brand reinforcement.
And I agree.
this response from a train operating company is typical of those that discourage their use (but not all do, thus confusing the issue)
http://
http://
I think it should. Non-smokers have been conditioned over years and years to feel uneasy with someone puffing away nearby, and the suggestion is to allow others to taunt them by mimicking the smoking habit ? Oh what a laugh that must be. I don't see the need for them anyway; if you are trying to give up then continuing to go through the actions must be of questionable help at best. The only folk that should be in favour would be those with a financial incentive to sell these things and make a fortune.
-- answer removed --
So, if there is passive 'smoking' from them then yes ban them from the same places.
Other places may whish to ban them for other reasons. For instance in an enclosed space the majority of passengers may not wish to be subjected to vapour next to them.
And what about the workplace, should they be allowed in there? I would suggest not.
But in an environment where people can move away from them then maybe.
Other places may whish to ban them for other reasons. For instance in an enclosed space the majority of passengers may not wish to be subjected to vapour next to them.
And what about the workplace, should they be allowed in there? I would suggest not.
But in an environment where people can move away from them then maybe.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.