E-Cigarettes/Vaping on Planes

[EnjoyingTheSun]

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

When you say diversionary tactics, what have I not answered? I'm still waiting for this scientific proof but have quoted a couple of the biggest studies that were meant to be proof but blew up in the anti-smokers faces.

Vaping helps people give up smoking, want to argue that point?

So as it does, the nasty old tobacco companies have more motivation to have it banned than an organisation that wants to stop smoking. Not see the logic there?


As for hand luggage, someone raised anti social behaviour so I bought up one of my pet peeves.
If it's hand lugguge it should be able to be carried by hand, no?
Or is crushing the contents of someone's HANDbag with your luggage ok because it saves you £15 stowing it?

[tomsteel]

[quote="Jonnie"]Back to the original question.

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

I would hazard a guess, although I have no scientifically proven studies to quote, that the majority of posters have answered the original question posed in the negative. I can only find one poster supporting vaping on planes even if it is against the majority wishes. The mumbo jumbo of aircraft air quality, passengers' luggage types, children on flights, jet engine noise/fumes are irrelevant to the point raised about vaping in an enclosed aircraft cabin space.

[frontalman]

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

Professionals helping people to fight addiction call it denial - an unwillingness to admit the truth. Yeah but, yeah but , yeah but. This person is stuck in it I'm afraid, Gavin.

[Sallywebstersnipples]

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.

I’ve heard people murder a few karaoke songs but never heard of anyone being killed by it.

Woe betide anyone sitting next to me on a plane and trying to vape, the ensuing tussle would find them trying to vape from their arsehole.

[Jonnie]

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?
What is the point, surely if you inhale something then exhale there is something exhaled there is effectively a "fume" I would like to know what that is.

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/

Fair enough but there are additional costs and I think it is still impossible to quantify, my mother died following an ulcer, her recovery was made impossible due to poor lung function, a result of smoking, and she spent a considerable amount of time in the ITU. The death and illness were not smoking related

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.

Pubs were in decline prior to the smoking ban. Some publicans embraced the ban and provided good facilities others did not. The social scene in the UK has changed vastly and was going through change prior to the ban. Many pubs modernised others did not, many pubs came on the market sold off by breweries for whom they did not meet the profit criteria required or the new business model, many of these were cheap and taken up by people who had no knowledge of the trade or in fact any catering experience or qualifications some succeeded some failed. The easy excuse was to blame the smoking ban. In the 10 years prior to the ban 3 pubs in my home town closed since the ban non have however 2 are distinctly more food oriented. The popularity of wine has been identified as a factor, now the houseperson can grab a couple of bottles whilst doing the shop for the cost of a couple of glasses and a meal for 2 for a tenner and that is Friday or Saturday nigh sorted. The supermarket has played a significant role in the decline of the number of pubs, the smoking ban, coming at the time of the start of the recession and a substituent period of poor growth and uncertainty may have had some effect but there are many other factors. Indeed, people I speak to in the UK seem to be more inclined to use pubs that are smoke free.

[sophie]

What happened to the discussion re vaping on planes. I vote no. That's all there is to say on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

[Keithcaley]

What is the view on vaping being banned on planes?

I vote NO Vaping

[Cally]

no vaping

[ardstrawray]

Sorted, move on.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Woe betide anyone sitting next to me on a plane and trying to vape, the ensuing tussle would find them trying to vape from their arsehole.

Another ex SAS man I assume

I'm guessing they must hold their reunions in Lapta now rather than Hereford by the amount out ex vets out here.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Sorted, move on.

Well it moved away onto passive smoking which hopefully everyone is now surprised how little scientific evidence there is on.

If nothing else we know how many people don't stow 'hand' luggage

[tomsteel]

Why cannot you accept that you are the only poster advocating use of e-cigarettes on flights when you sought others views, all of which oppose it. Your (off topic) retorts regarding SAS reunion sites, passive smoking, luggage size and stowage on flights, scientific reports et al just detract from your original query. You have an unequivocal answer, as plain as day and as clear as a polished window. Please, please move on and accept you are in a minority.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Your (off topic) retorts regarding SAS reunion sites, passive smoking, luggage size and stowage on flights, scientific reports et al just detract from your original query.

I would point out that my off topic retorts or diversions were in answer to others posts.

Somebody bought up third party fumes from e-cigarettes, I pointed out that the scientfic evidence on the dangers of passive smoking from actual cigarettes was suprisingly thin.

Somebody pointed out air quality on planes, I pointed out that actually air quality has gone down since smoking was banned.

Somebody pointed out the cost to the NHS of smoking, I simply pointed out if you banned smoking tomorrow you would have to find a minimum of £115 million a week extra.

Anti-social. I pointed out that the dozens of people ramming their 'hand' luggage into overhead lockers seemed to me far more anti-social and boorish than four people vaping.

If you want to throw in something that is off topic which someone answers you can't then bleat it is off topic if you can't refute what they say.

As for the SAS comment I simply assumed that the person threatening violence, which no-one seemed to have a problem with, was one of the many ex-special forces that seem to inhabit this region

[Keithcaley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA

Apologies if anyone thinks that it is 'off topic', but it's about as relevant to the original post as a lot of other stuff on this thread

[tomsteel]

Your (off topic) retorts regarding SAS reunion sites, passive smoking, luggage size and stowage on flights, scientific reports et al just detract from your original query.

I would point out that my off topic retorts or diversions were in answer to others posts.

Somebody bought up third party fumes from e-cigarettes, I pointed out that the scientfic evidence on the dangers of passive smoking from actual cigarettes was suprisingly thin.

Somebody pointed out air quality on planes, I pointed out that actually air quality has gone down since smoking was banned.

Somebody pointed out the cost to the NHS of smoking, I simply pointed out if you banned smoking tomorrow you would have to find a minimum of £115 million a week extra.

Anti-social. I pointed out that the dozens of people ramming their 'hand' luggage into overhead lockers seemed to me far more anti-social and boorish than four people vaping.

If you want to throw in something that is off topic which someone answers you can't then bleat it is off topic if you can't refute what they say.

As for the SAS comment I simply assumed that the person threatening violence, which no-one seemed to have a problem with, was one of the many ex-special forces that seem to inhabit this region

But, please answer my question. Why will you not accept the fact that every response to your original question is, 'No vaping in aircraft with other passengers involved'? All of your responses, thus far, appear to justify your view, but ignore the 'no' view of respondents who answered your question.

I just wonder how many special forces personnel you actually know personally with your assumption of their behaviour?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Your (off topic) retorts regarding SAS reunion sites, passive smoking, luggage size and stowage on flights, scientific reports et al just detract from your original query.

I would point out that my off topic retorts or diversions were in answer to others posts.

Somebody bought up third party fumes from e-cigarettes, I pointed out that the scientfic evidence on the dangers of passive smoking from actual cigarettes was suprisingly thin.

Somebody pointed out air quality on planes, I pointed out that actually air quality has gone down since smoking was banned.

Somebody pointed out the cost to the NHS of smoking, I simply pointed out if you banned smoking tomorrow you would have to find a minimum of £115 million a week extra.

Anti-social. I pointed out that the dozens of people ramming their 'hand' luggage into overhead lockers seemed to me far more anti-social and boorish than four people vaping.

If you want to throw in something that is off topic which someone answers you can't then bleat it is off topic if you can't refute what they say.

As for the SAS comment I simply assumed that the person threatening violence, which no-one seemed to have a problem with, was one of the many ex-special forces that seem to inhabit this region

But, please answer my question. Why will you not accept the fact that every response to your original question is, 'No vaping in aircraft with other passengers involved'? All of your responses, thus far, appear to justify your view, but ignore the 'no' view of respondents who answered your question.

I just wonder how many special forces personnel you actually know personally with your assumption of their behaviour?

No the consensus is certainly no vaping.
I would be interested how many ex-smokers there were in the discussion?
You’ve totally missed the special forces joke, never mind.

[tomsteel]

Your attempt to make your SF comments a joke beggars belief and, yes, did I miss its intent. Why your interest in non smokers, ex smokers or current smokers with regard to your original query? The numbers/status of respondents is irrelevant. Start a different thread.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Your attempt to make your SF comments a joke beggars belief and, yes, did I miss its intent. Why your interest in non smokers, ex smokers or current smokers with regard to your original query? The numbers/status of respondents is irrelevant. Start a different thread.

I’ll explain it slowly Tom, I can’t be the only person who has noticed that every other ex-pat out here is ex-marine, ex-SAS etc.

Not totally irrelevant as I find generally ex-smokers are the most avid anti smokers.
May I ask are you an ex-smoker?

But anyhow Tom has spoken thread must end.
What may I start a thread on Tom?
When someone brings up something you deem off subject would answering it be diversionary?

[Keithcaley]

I'll put my hands up to being an ex-smoker although, strangely, I don't really object to people smoking in the vicinity as long as I'm not in a confined space with them.

It did take hypnotism to break the habit, and I'm pleased to be able to report that it didn't have any adverse effects on me (Woof!...Woof Woof Woof! ) but if a trace of cigarette, cigar or pipe tobacco smoke should happen to drift past, I'm not at all repelled... Bizarre!

I do think that subjecting others to the smell of your habit in a confined space when there is no possibility of them escaping is anti-social - and I've no idea about the health implications of passive smoking or of passive vaping.

[Mr Chinnery]

Enjoying the sun,
i am not an ex smoker, also I am not ex special forces, I am just someone who wants to be free from other peoples
smoke, especially when I am eating or in an enclosed space.

As I have said before if smoking is not a problem for you, would you subject your children or grandchildren to a smoke filled room? If so please enclose photos of you smoking in an enclosed space with a child or other vulnerable person.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

If so please enclose photos of you smoking in an enclosed space with a child or other vulnerable person.

Define enclosed space, 1000 cubic feet, 5000 cubic feet, 10,000 cubic feet?
I ask because I doubt there is any space or solution that non-smokers would find acceptable.

Let's float this as an idea.
A plane has a sectioned off part where people can vape with a device that emits little to no fumes of nothing other than water vapour?
Acceptable?
I doubt it.

Re the photo would it be best if I'm dressed as Dick Dastardly cackling as I fan smoke towards a babe in arms?

I ask because obviously you can vape in an anti-social boorish way. You can eat crisps in an anti-social boorish way.


The reason I started the topic was to stimulate a debate that like all debates might venture into linked and interesting areas.
I would imagine a fair proportion of those that "say no, end of subject" were ex smokers.
Basically I've given up so shouldn't the whole world.

What was interesting was when I bought up 'hand' luggage on planes to illustrate how boorish/anti-social people could be that might have hit home to some. Along the lines of, well I don't smoke but I do have my 50 kilo suitcase.


Smokers are a minority as are golfers. There are less than 4 million golfers as opposed to over 9 million smokers.
You may counter with golfers do not cause any harm but on the other side of the coin in the UK there is a housing shortage or certainly a shortage of affordable housing.
Golf courses take up nearly double the land area that is occupied by housing.
Ban golf and we probably go a long way to solving the housing shortage.
But then many will splutter; "But I play golf!!!"

[Groucho]

I ask because obviously you can vape in an anti-social boorish way. You can eat crisps in an anti-social boorish way.

I bet you do in both cases but crisps at lowest do not represent something from which passive consumption is an issue....

If you insist on using spurious and in appropriate analogies I would ask you to consider what is the difference between blowing smoke into someone else's breathing space and passing on an airborne infectious lung disease? Nothing.... that's what.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I bet you do in both cases

Well if we're making snap judgements based on zero facts I'll bet you are an ex-smoker who rams your hand luggage into overhead lockers without a thought to other peoples property.

The analogies are in answer to things people have bought up after they couldn't find any evidence on the dangers of passive smoking.

[Mr Chinnery]

Enjoying the sun,
Re passive smoking. You obviously think it is safe so therefore you would quite happily confine your children/ grandchildren or other peoples children to a room full of tobacco smoke.
My post might be quite boorish but I am trying to get an answer from you.

[Groucho]

I bet you do in both cases

Well if we're making snap judgements based on zero facts I'll bet you are an ex-smoker who rams your hand luggage into overhead lockers without a thought to other peoples property.

The analogies are in answer to things people have bought up after they couldn't find any evidence on the dangers of passive smoking.

So not answering my question then.... NSTT.

And BTW we only ever use hand luggage but never have needed to worry about other passenger's property.... we always seem to find adequate space - but well done with the attempt "based on zero facts".... RBAY.

[Groucho]

ETS "Golf courses take up nearly double the land area that is occupied by housing."

What?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Enjoying the sun,
Re passive smoking. You obviously think it is safe so therefore you would quite happily confine your children/ grandchildren or other peoples children to a room full of tobacco smoke.
My post might be quite boorish but I am trying to get an answer from you.

Well there are rooms and rooms hence why I asked what you would define as a confined space. A phone box with one smoker in is a different space to let's say the Albert Hall with ten smokers in a designated area wouldn't you agree?

Like I asked would a designated boxed off space with people expelling water vapour not be acceptable?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I bet you do in both cases

Well if we're making snap judgements based on zero facts I'll bet you are an ex-smoker who rams your hand luggage into overhead lockers without a thought to other peoples property.

The analogies are in answer to things people have bought up after they couldn't find any evidence on the dangers of passive smoking.

So not answering my question then.... NSTT.

And BTW we only ever use hand luggage but never have needed to worry about other passenger's property.... we always seem to find adequate space - but well done with the attempt "based on zero facts".... RBAY.

I assume this infectious airborne lung disease is proven as infectious as against the supposed dangers of passive smoking which after fifty years of intense research isn't?
Not exactly the same is it?


Thankyou for answering half a question. Ex-Smoker? Make it up if it helps I won't know for sure.

So you have never seen someone ramming their 'hand' luggage into non adequate space? That I would find very hard to believe.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

ETS "Golf courses take up nearly double the land area that is occupied by housing."

What?

Surprising what you learn if a debate develops eh?

https://www.ft.com/content/79772697-54e ... 1110270eb2

https://guce.oath.com/collectConsent?br ... line=false

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... than-homes

So do we prioritise the homeless or youngsters unable to get on the housing ladder or people who want to walk around in colourful clothing chasing after a ball.

Depends on how into golf you are I guess

[Mr Chinnery]

Enjoying the sun,
I will try and keep it simple. Would you smoke in the average sized child’s bedroom in the average sized house while the child is in that room?

[sophie]

Mods, the initial question has been well and truly answered and I'm at a loss to understand how Golf came into the equation.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Enjoying the sun,
I will try and keep it simple. Would you smoke in the average sized child’s bedroom in the average sized house while the child is in that room?

No because there are alternatives.

But here's the rub the anti-smoking lobby won't allow any alternatives. None, zero, nada.
Smoking is bad for someones health, vaping isn't. Is there a problem with sectioning off a part of a plane or other building to allow people to vape? I can't think of one.

Let's expand this a little without being accused of changing the subject.

Vegan is apparently a more healthy diet than eating meat. Let's say over time it becomes more popular and now 80% of the population are now vegan and will offer endless literature how eating meat will cause heart disease etc etc.

So now they ban all meat from restaurants and heaven forbid you carry a ham sandwich to work that's banned too.
Of course after exempting the House of Commons from the meat ban as they did with smoking.

I assume you are a meat eater?
So you say ok I acknowledge that the vegan diet is healthier but I like meat and am going to keep eating it so how about we have the odd steak house?
It will satisfy my craving and the person running it will probably earn a fortune.
It might even get him back on his feet after he went bankrupt when the government banned all meat in restaurants and restaurant sales went through the floor.
You accept that they heavily tax your steak which will overly compensate the NHS for any heart disease.
Someone comes out with a substitute that replicates a steak but apart from taste doesn't look in the slightest like a steak. OK we'll ban that as well because even though it looks more like a submarine than a steak it could be a gateway to meat eating.


Now would that make you totally self centred or would you perhaps think that the nanny state is going a little over the top?


Smoking is now a minority pursuit, but that minority is nine million out of sixty million.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Mods, the initial question has been well and truly answered and I'm at a loss to understand how Golf came into the equation.

I just think if we are going to go totally with majority rule and look to the greater good, any reasonable person must agree that the ban on the mere 1.5 million golfers who play once a week needs to be a matter of urgency to assist the housing shortage in the UK.

[woodspeckie]

I play Crown Green bowls 4 times a week should the bowling greens be taken for housing too? And the football and rugby pitches that are only played on once a week? Get real. All this piffle because you want to smoke/vape.

[Mr Chinnery]

Enjoying the sun,
It’s now obvious you are not going to answer a simple question.
So I will infer from your refusal to answer the questions put to you, that you would be willing to smoke in an average sized child’s room in an average sized house when children are present in that room.
A very sad state of affairs indeed.

[Soner]

Locked. I believe this thread has run its course.