Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

What is the view on vaping being banned on planes?

Ban it wherever the fumes can affect others. Children, elderly, chest complaints etc are all at risk.

tomsteel wrote:Ban it wherever the fumes can affect others. Children, elderly, chest complaints etc are all at risk.

What fumes? There are no fumes.

Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

Roy Castle?????

Well, the pilot in this report from the BBC today won't ever vape again on a plane ... and he almost certainly won't ever again pilot a plane as well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-44818617

laptatony wrote:Roy Castle?????

What about him?
Died of lung cancer and didn’t smoke but doesn’t prove he died because of passive smoking.
Might as well call out Windsor Castle

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

laptatony wrote:Roy Castle?????

What about him?
Died of lung cancer and didn’t smoke but doesn’t prove he died because of passive smoking.
Might as well call out Windsor Castle

There are none as blind as those who refuse to see. However, ban any form of pollutants in confined spaces for the health of all.

tomsteel wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

laptatony wrote:Roy Castle?????

What about him?
Died of lung cancer and didn’t smoke but doesn’t prove he died because of passive smoking.
Might as well call out Windsor Castle

There are none as blind as those who refuse to see. However, ban any form of pollutants in confined spaces for the health of all.

Professor Sir Richard Doll said on Desert Island Discs in 2001 that “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
It was Doll with Bradford Hall who published the landmark paper that proved the link between smoking and lung cancer.

EnjoytheSun, "There are no fumes" What are you talking about. I was sitting outside in a café having coffee last month when a couple of what I think were German tourist sat down at the next table. Ten minutes later I had to move, the fumes (be they dangerous or not) were really strong.

sophie wrote:EnjoytheSun, "There are no fumes" What are you talking about. I was sitting outside in a café having coffee last month when a couple of what I think were German tourist sat down at the next table. Ten minutes later I had to move, the fumes (be they dangerous or not) were really strong.

Fumes indicates fumes similar to car fumes.
Admitidly some of these e-cigarettes are more invasive than others as some people using their phones on a train are more invasive than others so asking someone to knock it on the head is fair banning something on health grounds with zero evidence isn’t.
Banning German tourists is another subject
A lot of e-cigarettes gave off just water vapour which if that is invasive then hot food on planes will need to be banned.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Professor Sir Richard Doll said on Desert Island Discs in 2001 that “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

He must have changed his tune so:
From his obituary in the Daily Telegraph
“In 1986 Doll supported the findings of research which suggested that lung cancer could also be caused by "passive" smoking, and during the 1990s he was prominent in the campaign to persuade the Government to ban tobacco advertising.”

Mowgli597 wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Professor Sir Richard Doll said on Desert Island Discs in 2001 that “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

He must have changed his tune so:
From his obituary in the Daily Telegraph
“In 1986 Doll supported the findings of research which suggested that lung cancer could also be caused by "passive" smoking, and during the 1990s he was prominent in the campaign to persuade the Government to ban tobacco advertising.”

Banning advertising on tobacco is a different matter.
He might have changed his mind good scientists rely on evidence a lot of scientists rely on headlines and chasing funding.
As for what was in his obituary there has been 40 years of propaganda on passive smoking so a little white lie in an obituary wouldn’t suprise me.
WHO etc have all carried out studies and when the results don’t say what they wish they bury them and pressure scientists to be silent

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

tomsteel wrote:Ban it wherever the fumes can affect others. Children, elderly, chest complaints etc are all at risk.

What fumes? There are no fumes.

Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

You are kidding right? Only studies commissioned by the tobacco industry have attempted to whitewash the results. It is well documented fact that US tobacco companies knew of and buried details of any unfavourable findings and have been fined record amounts for doing so.

It's just a small point but, what is secondhand about smoke coming direct from a lit cigarette to your lungs with no filter to intervene?

One another point, what is the plume issuing from a vaper's mouth and nose if not fumes?

Groucho wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

tomsteel wrote:Ban it wherever the fumes can affect others. Children, elderly, chest complaints etc are all at risk.

What fumes? There are no fumes.

Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

You are kidding right? Only studies commissioned by the tobacco industry have attempted to whitewash the results. It is well documented fact that US tobacco companies knew of and buried details of any unfavourable findings and have been fined record amounts for doing so.

It's just a small point but, what is secondhand about smoke coming direct from a lit cigarette to your lungs with no filter to intervene?

One another point, what is the plume issuing from a vaper's mouth and nose if not fumes?

Ok find me a study that proves passive smoking causes cancer

Groucho wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

tomsteel wrote:Ban it wherever the fumes can affect others. Children, elderly, chest complaints etc are all at risk.

What fumes? There are no fumes.

Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

You are kidding right? Only studies commissioned by the tobacco industry have attempted to whitewash the results. It is well documented fact that US tobacco companies knew of and buried details of any unfavourable findings and have been fined record amounts for doing so.

It's just a small point but, what is secondhand about smoke coming direct from a lit cigarette to your lungs with no filter to intervene?

One another point, what is the plume issuing from a vaper's mouth and nose if not fumes?

Irony Groucho - IRONY!

Keep it banned, who wants to sit by some one with vapour all around them, not me .... Keep your habits to your self and in private . ... .....

Try thinking of others travelling with you , not very hard really ....

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

Ok find me a study that proves passive smoking causes cancer[/quote]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5655647/

Cant manage without your dummy during a flight? PATHETIC!

kerry 6138 wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

Ok find me a study that proves passive smoking causes cancer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5655647/[/quote]

Wow are they still quoting the 1986 reports?
Even ASH had to admit that the two surveys were not able to come up with any hard evidence.
I think you’ll find they just suggested “an association between ETS and coronary heart disease was biologically possible.”
The reports admitted that “epidemiological evidence was inconclusive.”

Having a quick look at table 7.1 it’s the usual nonsense. A one sentence summary vaguely hinting at a link. So I'm guessing the rest are samples of 8 people or heavily redacted reports that proved zero.



Here’s a couple of examples of when they have had a proper go at linking passive smoking with lung cancer or heart disease.

In 1988 the WHO commissioned its IARC to do a project in seven countries on passive smoking.
The IARC found that there was no “statistically significant” additional risk from passive smoking at home or in the workspace.
The WHO suppressed the report but it was leaked to the papers.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/200 ... e.html?m=1

The biggest study ever commissioned was by The American Cancer Society, based on a study of 118,094 Californian adults, including 35,000 couples of which only one partner was a smoker. The two researchers, Professor James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat spent 40 years on it.
It proved zero.
The central finding was there was “no casual relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.”

So obviously The American Cancer Society tried to abort the project by withdrawing its funding. Enstrom and Kabat obviously couldn’t get any funding from any other source as they had come up with the wrong answer so had to turn to the American tobacco industry for funding to finance the completion of their life’s work. Both Enstrom and Kabat are non smokers btw.
Then no US scientific journal would publish it but eventually it was published in the British Medical Journal.

So by all means dislike smoking but I'm afraid you can't take up the scientific high ground that passive smoking does anything to you other than annoy you.

geroff wrote:Keep it banned, who wants to sit by some one with vapour all around them, not me .... Keep your habits to your self and in private . ... .....

Try thinking of others travelling with you , not very hard really ....

So we can ban infants on planes then?
Obviously all alcohol too?

OK does that mean we can ban karaoke then?
While we are thinking of others and what might irritate them.
The noise of Karaoke travels much further than cigarette smoke.

Deniz1 wrote:Cant manage without your dummy during a flight? PATHETIC!

I've not much to say here so i've DECIDED TO PUT IT IN CAPITALS because it may give it some merit.

When did you give up smoking btw?

Groucho wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

tomsteel wrote:Ban it wherever the fumes can affect others. Children, elderly, chest complaints etc are all at risk.

What fumes? There are no fumes.

Considering after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous I doubt they will find any risk from vaping any time soon.

You are kidding right? Only studies commissioned by the tobacco industry have attempted to whitewash the results. It is well documented fact that US tobacco companies knew of and buried details of any unfavourable findings and have been fined record amounts for doing so.

It's just a small point but, what is secondhand about smoke coming direct from a lit cigarette to your lungs with no filter to intervene?

One another point, what is the plume issuing from a vaper's mouth and nose if not fumes?

Covered the well documented fact already about the US tobacco companies. If anyone is doing any burying it is the WHO etc.


As we are on clean air on planes. In the days when smoking was allowed on an airplane, it was generally recognized that by the airlines that, for the comfort of the passengers and crew, it would be necessary to vent the cabin and bring in fresh air from the outside.
But once smoking was banned on airlines, the decision was made to stop venting the cabin and to recycle the air from the engines

Commercial passenger planes have a system which compresses air from the engines and uses it to pressurise the cabin. But it can malfunction, with excess oil particles entering the air supply.

So while anti-smokers and non-smokers were enjoying their "fresh, clean" smoke-free, they were actually being poisoned.

Now I think this story is extremely important because, guess what? The same thing happened in buildings! Like pubs, bars and restaurants. Now these building are not freshened with recycled air from the engines so there is no risk of the same thing happening in a building. Except that some buildings have mould and fungus problems. And some restaurants burn candles and have wood burning stoves. And people wear perfume when they go out and cooking fumes accumulate and people fart and have body odour and carpets emit VOC's and formaldehyde is emitted from the wood.

And all of these things are accumulating in your "fresh, clean" air because buildings are saving money by not ventilating as much as they had to when smokers were present!

This is one of those little unintended consequences when some people decide that they know what is best for everyone.

ETS - this is all obfuscation - every time someone puts forward statements that don't agree with your world view of how wonderful smoking is and we should all embrace it without fear as being harm free - you raise issues totally unconnected with it....

You carry on poisoning yourself - but please don't expect the rest of the non-smoking world to be happy to share confined spaces with you...

Groucho wrote:ETS - this is all obfuscation - every time someone puts forward statements that don't agree with your world view of how wonderful smoking is and we should all embrace it without fear as being harm free - you raise issues totally unconnected with it....

You carry on poisoning yourself - but please don't expect the rest of the non-smoking world to be happy to share confined spaces with you...

Groucho - how succinctly you have expressed a sensible opinion for all like-minded people. Thank you so very much!

Groucho wrote:ETS - this is all obfuscation - every time someone puts forward statements that don't agree with your world view of how wonderful smoking is and we should all embrace it without fear as being harm free - you raise issues totally unconnected with it....

You carry on poisoning yourself - but please don't expect the rest of the non-smoking world to be happy to share confined spaces with you...

Totally unconnected how?
Someone points out the health dangers of second hand water vapour I point out there is zero evidence of any dangers of second hand smoke.
Someone points out that that it pollutes the air in a confined space I point out that the air on a plane is worse since they banned smoking on planes.
If someone said the scientific evidence of the dangers of passive smoking is as strong as it is for global warming or climate change or whatever the latest title we are using I would of course be forced to agree with them.
As for poisoning myself e-cigarettes have had more success in stopping people smoking than anything over the last few decades so why ban them?
The problem these manufacturers have is if tomorrow they invented an e-cigarette that produced zero water vapour the nanny state would still ban them.

No-one want to come up with the nonsense that e-cigarettes encourage the young to take up smoking? The gateway theory?
Come on, you know you want to
It’s not like you need any scientific proof just a hunch will do.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Ok find me a study that proves passive smoking causes cancer

The problem here is not that such studies do not exist. The problem is that you will chose to discount them anyway. The evidence that a non smoker who lives with a smoker has a significantly higher risk of "ischaemic heart disease" than one who lives with a non smoker is, it seems to me, pretty compelling. And yes this is not about cancer but it is about health risk from passive smoking.

https://www.bmj.com/content/315/7114/97 ... LL&journal...

But of course you can always find a basis to discount such studies if you chose to.

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Ok find me a study that proves passive smoking causes cancer

The problem here is not that such studies do not exist. The problem is that you will chose to discount them anyway. The evidence that a non smoker who lives with a smoker has a significantly higher risk of "ischaemic heart disease" than one who lives with a non smoker is, it seems to me, pretty compelling. And yes this is not about cancer but it is about health risk from passive smoking.

https://www.bmj.com/content/315/7114/97 ... LL&journal...


But of course you can always find a basis to discount such studies if you chose to.

The Enstrom and Kabat study took 40 years and nearly 120,000 subjects and proved zero so the anti smoking lobby tried to bury it. I find that more compelling than some other surveys of ten people show that there is a 1% chancepassive smokinf causes cancer. 1% is called statistical variation and is generally ignored.
You can prove watching Morris dancing causes leukaemia given a small sample and some vague junk science.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ng-danger/

Do you mean the one funded by tobbaco industry

Enjoying the sun,
In relation to passive smoking, So you would be quite happy to sit in an enclosed space puffing away on cigarette smoke
with your newly born baby or Grandchildren, or another persons baby or in a hospital ward that is treating asthmatics, is that what you are saying?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Ok find me a study that proves passive smoking causes cancer

The problem here is not that such studies do not exist. The problem is that you will chose to discount them anyway. The evidence that a non smoker who lives with a smoker has a significantly higher risk of "ischaemic heart disease" than one who lives with a non smoker is, it seems to me, pretty compelling. And yes this is not about cancer but it is about health risk from passive smoking.

https://www.bmj.com/content/315/7114/97 ... LL&journal...


But of course you can always find a basis to discount such studies if you chose to.

Finding studies that show passive smoking has negative impact on health is not the same as finding studies that show such that you personally would accept as valid

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The Enstrom and Kabat study took 40 years and nearly 120,000 subjects and proved zero so the anti smoking lobby tried to bury it.

Well not buried very effectively given that you refer to it ? As to it proving 'zero' the actual conclusion of that report, in the words of James E Enstrom himself, rather than you paraphrasing, was "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I find that more compelling than some other surveys of ten people show that there is a 1% chancepassive smokinf causes cancer. 1% is called statistical variation and is generally ignored.
You can prove watching Morris dancing causes leukaemia given a small sample and some vague junk science.

As I already mentioned you can always find a reason to believe or disbelieve a study if you want to. However the study that I gave a link to, that you dismiss on the basis that it is a study of '10 people' is not in fact such at all. It is a 'meta review' across 19 previous studies that I would be willing to wager none of which had a sample size of 10 people. Still no reason for you dismiss it out of hand on the basis of a sample size of 10 people regardless I guess.

kerry 6138 wrote:https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ng-danger/

Do you mean the one funded by tobbaco industry

When they had their funding withdrawn because they came up with the wrong answer they eventually, reluctantly, got funding from the tobacco industry to finish their life’s work.
These guys are anti smoking remember?

The tobacco industry obviously funded it for their own business reasons.

Sorry to let the truth get in the way of spin.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

geroff wrote:Keep it banned, who wants to sit by some one with vapour all around them, not me .... Keep your habits to your self and in private . ... .....

Try thinking of others travelling with you , not very hard really ....

So we can ban infants on planes then?
Obviously all alcohol too?

OK does that mean we can ban karaoke then?
While we are thinking of others and what might irritate them.
The noise of Karaoke travels much further than cigarette smoke.

As I pointed out ETS, CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS, , infants can be annoying but dont put my health at risk, alcohol doesnt make me ill as I dont consume it like the person drinking it, Karaoke is annoying but not really a health issue is it .... Strikes me you just dont like any critisism and only what you want .... Life ain't like that , Ecigerats and passive smoking defiantly harms so go get a private jet if you want to poison yourself ....

Mr Chinnery wrote:Enjoying the sun,
In relation to passive smoking, So you would be quite happy to sit in an enclosed space puffing away on cigarette smoke
with your newly born baby or Grandchildren, or another persons baby or in a hospital ward that is treating asthmatics, is that what you are saying?

No but let’s not confuse boorish behaviour with science.
If there were smoking carriages on trains/tunes, smoking sections on planes which meant that the plane companies went back to pumping in cleaner air in the rest of the plane, smoking sections in restaurants etc etc would that not solve the problem?

geroff wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

geroff wrote:Keep it banned, who wants to sit by some one with vapour all around them, not me .... Keep your habits to your self and in private . ... .....

Try thinking of others travelling with you , not very hard really ....

So we can ban infants on planes then?
Obviously all alcohol too?

OK does that mean we can ban karaoke then?
While we are thinking of others and what might irritate them.
The noise of Karaoke travels much further than cigarette smoke.

As I pointed out ETS, CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS, , infants can be annoying but dont put my health at risk, alcohol doesnt make me ill as I dont consume it like the person drinking it, Karaoke is annoying but not really a health issue is it .... Strikes me you just dont like any critisism and only what you want .... Life ain't like that , Ecigerats and passive smoking defiantly harms so go get a private jet if you want to poison yourself ....

Definitely harms?
Ok they have been going at passive smoking for a good 40 years and still do studies.Why if it has been definitely proved?
E-cigarettes zero data and no scientific conclusion other than a feeling

erol wrote:
Well not buried very effectively given that you refer to it ? As to it proving 'zero' the actual conclusion of that report, in the words of James E Enstrom himself, rather than you paraphrasing, was "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

After 40 years we got that, lets not overlook that the guy is a committed non-smoker. To his credit he put his scientists head on and printed the data but still got lambasted for it.
Be honest do you think if he would have found anything it wouldn't have been in banner headlines and yelled from the roof tops?

erol wrote:
It is a 'meta review' across 19 previous studies that I would be willing to wager none of which had a sample size of 10 people. Still no reason for you dismiss it out of hand on the basis of a sample size of 10 people regardless I guess.

But if we have proved the data or the evidence is compelling then why the need for more studies?

I will have a look at this meta review, I'm pretty sure it will be very selective highlights from 19 flawed studies but I appreciate that you are conflicted as you are a smoker but as a liberal you have a pressing need for the government to micro manage every aspect of our lives

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Sorry to let the truth get in the way of spin.

You take a study where the author of that study concludes "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed." and present that as "after 50 years of various in depth studies they have yet to find any scientific proof second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous" and then complain about spin ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I will have a look at this meta review, I'm pretty sure it will be very selective highlights from 19 flawed studies but I appreciate that you are conflicted as you are a smoker but as a liberal you have a pressing need for the government to micro manage every aspect of our lives

Only as conflicted as you are as a smoker that wants to believe that their smoking does not impact the health of those around them when they smoke, it would seem to me

erol wrote:
It is a 'meta review' across 19 previous studies that I would be willing to wager none of which had a sample size of 10 people. Still no reason for you dismiss it out of hand on the basis of a sample size of 10 people regardless I guess.

Sorry Erol it lost me in virtually the first sentence. “Meta-analysis of all 19 acceptable published studies.”
Acceptable to who?
Also it was dated 1997 and the Enstrom and Kabat study was published in the BMJ in May 2003. Incidentally when they did publish Enstrom and Kabat’s study the editor of the BMJ, Dr Richard Smith, came under fire from the whole anti-smoking lobby and had to point out that whilst the BMJ was ‘Passionately anti-tobacco’ it was not ‘anti-science.’

Enjoying the sun,
Your comment re separate smoking areas on trains and tubes restaurants etc. Yes so long as there were no windows to be opened to the outside so that persons passing were not enveloped in smoke. Passengers/ customers who smoke are charged more for the cleanup decontamination of these areas. Also so long as the smokers were not allowed treatment on the NHS for smoking related diseases/illnesses when time and time again they have been warned.

Mr Chinnery wrote:
Enjoying the sun,
Your comment re separate smoking areas on trains and tubes restaurants etc. Yes so long as there were no windows to be opened to the outside so that persons passing were not enveloped in smoke. Passengers/ customers who smoke are charged more for the cleanup decontamination of these areas. Also so long as the smokers were not allowed treatment on the NHS for smoking related diseases/illnesses when time and time again they have been warned.

Noticed how many pubs have closed since the ban on smoking in the UK?
Personally I think those pubs would happily re-open and bear any costs for clean-up wouldn't you?
As for the cost to the NHS another BS argument.
In 2015 direct taxation on tobacco bought in £12 billion. That is ignoring personal taxation on people who work in the tobacco industry.
The cost to the NHS of smoking related diseases was between £3-£6 billion.
So ban smoking and find £115 million a week for the NHS.

But if the NHS costs are a worry for you can I suggest we make the obese smoke.
Even if cigarettes aren't an appetite suppressant, twenty cigarettes a day should at least stop them eating a few pie and chips a day

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:..... came under fire from the whole anti-smoking lobby ...’

I personally find this whole 'lobby' thing interesting as well.

Is there a 'pro smoking' lobby ? Clearly there is. There are large profitable companies who sell a product that is is based on the administering of addictive chemicals to the buyers of such products. They 'lobby' in the purest and most direct means, by paying considerable sums (from their profits in selling addictive chemicals to people) to professional lobbyists and making considerable donations of cash to political parties / politicians and have been doing this for decades. Their interest is 'vested' entirely in protecting their own profits.

So let's think about the 'anti smoking lobby' in comparison for a moment. Who are these people ? What interests are they 'vested' in ? How do they 'lobby' in pursuit of their interests ? Do they employ at large cost professional lobbyists ? Have they been making large donations of cash to political parties / politicians for decades ? If so from where has the money to do this come from ?

I am not saying there is no such thing as an 'anti smoking lobby' but I am saying that in my opinion it is not comparable to the 'pro smoking lobby' and in terms of which is more likely to have had an impact on public perception and government regulation with regards to smoking I find it hard to not guestimate that the pro smoking lobby has and continues to have more effect than the anti smoking lobby, whatever that actually is.

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:..... came under fire from the whole anti-smoking lobby ...’

I personally find this whole 'lobby' thing interesting as well.

Is there a 'pro smoking' lobby ? Clearly there is. There are large profitable companies who sell a product that is is based on the administering of addictive chemicals to the buyers of such products. They 'lobby' in the purest and most direct means, by paying considerable sums (from their profits in selling addictive chemicals to people) to professional lobbyists and making considerable donations of cash to political parties / politicians and have been doing this for decades. Their interest is 'vested' entirely in protecting their own profits.

So let's think about the 'anti smoking lobby' in comparison for a moment. Who are these people ? What interests are they 'vested' in ? How do they 'lobby' in pursuit of their interests ? Do they employ at large cost professional lobbyists ? Have they been making large donations of cash to political parties / politicians for decades ? If so from where has the money to do this come from ?

I am not saying there is no such thing as an 'anti smoking lobby' but I am saying that in my opinion it is not comparable to the 'pro smoking lobby' and in terms of which is more likely to have had an impact on public perception and government regulation with regards to smoking I find it hard to not guestimate that the pro smoking lobby has and continues to have more effect than the anti smoking lobby, whatever that actually is.

Undoubtedly the tobacco companies lobby governments and if you want to paint them as despicable companies only interested in making money I'd find it hard to argue.
ASH (Action on Smoking) is a registered charity mainly funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the Department of Health.

Charities lobbying governments? Never heard of that?

I think their main interest is control. They wouldn't be the first charity to be hijacked by pressure groups to try and micro manage people's lives.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Undoubtedly the tobacco companies lobby governments and if you want to paint them as despicable companies only interested in making money I'd find it hard to argue.
ASH (Action on Smoking) is a registered charity mainly funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the Department of Health.

Charities lobbying governments? Never never heard of that?

I think their main interest is control. They wouldn't be the first charity to be hijacked by pressure groups to try and micro manage people's lives.

Sure charities lobby but if I were to choose from what source of money would I like to pay for lobbying from, with one choice being the profits from selling addictive chemicals to people and the other being from charitable donations, I know which I would choose.

As to motivation, some nebulous desire amongst some nebulous group of people to want to 'micro manage people's lives' is for me not really comparable with the understandable motivation of a profitable company that sells addictive drugs to people to want to maintain its right to do so and its profits from doing so.

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Undoubtedly the tobacco companies lobby governments and if you want to paint them as despicable companies only interested in making money I'd find it hard to argue.
ASH (Action on Smoking) is a registered charity mainly funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the Department of Health.

Charities lobbying governments? Never never heard of that?

I think their main interest is control. They wouldn't be the first charity to be hijacked by pressure groups to try and micro manage people's lives.

Sure charities lobby but if I were to choose from what source of money would I like to pay for lobbying from, with one choice being the profits from selling addictive chemicals to people and the other being from charitable donations, I know which I would choose.

As to motivation, some nebulous desire amongst some nebulous group of people to want to 'micro manage people's lives' is for me not really comparable with the understandable motivation of a profitable company that sells addictive drugs to people to want to maintain its right to do so and its profits from doing so.

So we agree there are lobby's on both sides of the argument?
Anyhew back to the subject
Any scientific evidence vaping causes harm to the person vaping?
No, pretty strong evidence that it helps people give up smoking which if it proves to be 100% successful will cost the tax payer around £115 million per week.

Any scientific evidence vaping causes harm to others?
No zero. There isn't any reputable evidence that secondary smoke causes any more harm than someone eating a carrot next to you so doubtful they are going to turn up any evidence in the next 100 years. But nanny state knows best we'll ban it anyway.


Vaping could be a gateway to people taking up smoking?

Agreed that would be bad but again zero evidence and if we follow that theory to it's natural conclusion we will ban glasses water on planes.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:What is the view on vaping being banned on planes?

Well you asked what people thought, they told you, you didn't like it. My view is that anyone who smokes must have low self esteem, because you are slowly killing yourself. When I see people vaping I think it looks pathetic, and if it were me I'd have to do the cold turkey.

frontalman wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:What is the view on vaping being banned on planes?

Well you asked what people thought, they told you, you didn't like it. My view is that anyone who smokes must have low self esteem, because you are slowly killing yourself. When I see people vaping I think it looks pathetic, and if it were me I'd have to do the cold turkey.

Sure cold turkey is great if you can do it but for those who can’t vaping helps them give up. It’s been proved that it is a major breakthrough.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I’d say the biggest beneficiaries of the ban on vaping are those evil tobacco companies.

As for what is annoying and anti social on planes I would venture people ramming on mini suitcases on as hand luggage puts the 4 people vaping in the shade.
Too cheap to pay to have their case stowed they will ram their case in the overhead locker without a thought to anyone’s property.
Also if it is hand luggage surely it needs to be carried by hand? So let’s ban wheels on the mini cases, that should cut them down somewhat.

Back to the original question.

For me no vaping on planes there are plenty of other substitutes if nicotine replacement is needed.

As for passive smoking it is to me clearly detrimental to health, I spend an evening in a moderately smoky room and the next day i am on my hands and knees coughing. As for the cost to the NHS of smoking, there are other things that can be tied to smoking and it is impossible to say what smoking costs the NHS. I have had a lot fewer appointments since ceasing to work in a smoky atmosphere.

As for pubs closing, I know many thriving pubs in the UK and some not so, many pubs have closed but this is largely down to the competitive prices in supermarkets who are selling beers etc often at less than publicans can buy it for and television, we now have endless channels to choose from so going out is an event and restaurants, also non smoking are thriving.

Jonnie wrote:Back to the original question.

For me no vaping on planes there are plenty of other substitutes if nicotine replacement is needed.

So if tomorrow they produce an e-cigarette with zero fumes or whatever you'll be in favour of it?

Jonnie wrote: As for the cost to the NHS of smoking, there are other things that can be tied to smoking and it is impossible to say what smoking costs the NHS.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gland-2015
The government seems to think it was £2.6 billion in 2015 so my £3-£6 billion was generous.
I got that from here
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoki ... -treasury/

Jonnie wrote: As for pubs closing, I know many thriving pubs in the UK and some not so, many pubs have closed but this is largely down to the competitive prices in supermarkets who are selling beers etc often at less than publicans can buy it for and television, we now have endless channels to choose from so going out is an event and restaurants, also non smoking are thriving.

Eleven per cent of pubs closed within the first four years of the non smoking ban. Coincidence?
Supermarkets selling booze cheap wasn't an unknown phenomenon pre-2007.
As for TV audiences more channels doesn't equal more viewers I doubt the viewing figures over the last ten years are a patch on the 1970s.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

frontalman wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:What is the view on vaping being banned on planes?

Well you asked what people thought, they told you, you didn't like it. My view is that anyone who smokes must have low self esteem, because you are slowly killing yourself. When I see people vaping I think it looks pathetic, and if it were me I'd have to do the cold turkey.

Sure cold turkey is great if you can do it but for those who can’t vaping helps them give up. It’s been proved that it is a major breakthrough.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I’d say the biggest beneficiaries of the ban on vaping are those evil tobacco companies.

As for what is annoying and anti social on planes I would venture people ramming on mini suitcases on as hand luggage puts the 4 people vaping in the shade.
Too cheap to pay to have their case stowed they will ram their case in the overhead locker without a thought to anyone’s property.
Also if it is hand luggage surely it needs to be carried by hand? So let’s ban wheels on the mini cases, that should cut them down somewhat.

So yet again we are treated to more diversionary tactics.... when will it stop?