E-cigarettes ignite debate in the Peterborough - Peterborough Today
nothing new here, just thought i should post it.
nothing new here, just thought i should post it.
E-cigarettes ignite debate in the Peterborough (news report)
- Thread starter dc2k08
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
it is going to be an ongoing debate until a lab issues an official statement. The 2 parts to the argument keep getting mixed together.
On one part the subversion of non smoking areas seems to be the main issue. Do e-cigs violate the law banning smoking in public places. The common response is no, however the feeling most people get is if the e-cig is allowed in bars, it makes the people in the bar who have been programmed to be uncomfortable around smokers to rehash the same feelings. The appearance of vapor being blown ignites the feelings of being exposed to smoke even when it is only an illusion.
The second part is the unknown health risks if any. It seems as though the conversation in each news report starts off with people asking about part one, then use part 2 as the reason part 1 is being violated.
If there are health risks, then there is a chance vaping in a public place could effect others as second hand smoke does with regular cigs is a violation of the clean air acts and such.
So until someone does provide a real scientific study, part one will always be in question.
The bottom line is it is not breaking the law, and it will there fore be up to the property owner of the pub owners to determine if they want to refuse service to e-cig smokers. If there is no property owner and it is a public place, like a street, then the police will most likely have to choose to enforce the law on a e-smoker.
To be honest a quick way of determining the health risk and legality of e-cig smoking in ban areas is to let it go to court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, if they can not prove harm then the case it self sets a standard. The prosecution would need to do test on the e-cig and show a scientific study that it is harmful before someone could be convicted of breaking the law. Since smoking in banned areas is simply a petty disorderly persons offense like littering, no jail would be imposed if found guilty. A simple fine would be the worst sentence. In the grand scheme of things it will allow the e-smoke community to get a definitive answer from someone who was willing to challenge the system and be the sacrificial lamb so to speak.
Civil liberties are the key issue here. Civil disobedience has brought change to many countries, and the right to choose what you put in your body is something that American civil rights leaders have been fighting for since America was founded.
On one part the subversion of non smoking areas seems to be the main issue. Do e-cigs violate the law banning smoking in public places. The common response is no, however the feeling most people get is if the e-cig is allowed in bars, it makes the people in the bar who have been programmed to be uncomfortable around smokers to rehash the same feelings. The appearance of vapor being blown ignites the feelings of being exposed to smoke even when it is only an illusion.
The second part is the unknown health risks if any. It seems as though the conversation in each news report starts off with people asking about part one, then use part 2 as the reason part 1 is being violated.
If there are health risks, then there is a chance vaping in a public place could effect others as second hand smoke does with regular cigs is a violation of the clean air acts and such.
So until someone does provide a real scientific study, part one will always be in question.
The bottom line is it is not breaking the law, and it will there fore be up to the property owner of the pub owners to determine if they want to refuse service to e-cig smokers. If there is no property owner and it is a public place, like a street, then the police will most likely have to choose to enforce the law on a e-smoker.
To be honest a quick way of determining the health risk and legality of e-cig smoking in ban areas is to let it go to court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, if they can not prove harm then the case it self sets a standard. The prosecution would need to do test on the e-cig and show a scientific study that it is harmful before someone could be convicted of breaking the law. Since smoking in banned areas is simply a petty disorderly persons offense like littering, no jail would be imposed if found guilty. A simple fine would be the worst sentence. In the grand scheme of things it will allow the e-smoke community to get a definitive answer from someone who was willing to challenge the system and be the sacrificial lamb so to speak.
Civil liberties are the key issue here. Civil disobedience has brought change to many countries, and the right to choose what you put in your body is something that American civil rights leaders have been fighting for since America was founded.
More likely the government/s would place a blanket ban on e-cigarettes until they can be proved to be safe. Since that would take several years we the e-cig using community would be the ones to suffer. it is far better right now to keep quiet and let the tests be done and completed before upsetting any carts. I don't want to go back to tobacco, I don't want the smell, I don't want the mess (ash, ashtrays, .... ends etc). I'm not saying e-cig's are perfect, far from it, but they will never get better if we rock the boat too much. Once you start reading through the forum posts you'll realise a lot of background work is being done and I like many others do not want to see that work being wasted.
given the option to choose between something thats proven to be very very unsafe and something that isnt as yet proven to be safe.. for any sane individual the choice is easy..
the rest is waffle by those who know nothing.. its best ignored..
trog
the rest is waffle by those who know nothing.. its best ignored..
trog
I think everything depends on the country you live in. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, and each state has its own laws. I would not suggest looking for a fight, but as these get more popular, a fight will happen and someone who feels oppressed will bring it to court. This is inevitable, and I guarantee that in a few months there will be more e-smokers who don't read web forums than those that do. Marketing the mantra of loose lips sink ships is impossible in the consumer market.
E-smoking is going to get big fast. As soon as the first US distributor cashes in on it, and puts it in all the 7-11 style stores, it will be beyond the control of the people who wish to make the transition smoothly into a market that will be educated.
Further more the anti smoking activists will attack hard when this becomes main stream. All the worries I have read on this forum, from resistance to the inevitable use of these with controlled substances will come to the fore ground.
Remember what Ghandi said though
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
We all know the e-cig is the future, and the best current way to satisfy the many issues smokers face with regular cigs.
E-smoking is going to get big fast. As soon as the first US distributor cashes in on it, and puts it in all the 7-11 style stores, it will be beyond the control of the people who wish to make the transition smoothly into a market that will be educated.
Further more the anti smoking activists will attack hard when this becomes main stream. All the worries I have read on this forum, from resistance to the inevitable use of these with controlled substances will come to the fore ground.
Remember what Ghandi said though
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
We all know the e-cig is the future, and the best current way to satisfy the many issues smokers face with regular cigs.
- Status
Similar threads
