Scotrail Bans Electronic Cigarettes.

michael769 said:

Trains are private property and the operators are entitled to set whatever conditions they choose. If you don't like it don't enter their property.

Click to expand...

cjp said:

I think not

Click to expand...

What? You don't think trains are private property? Or that you don't think the occupiers of private property are allowed to set conditions of entry to that property?

Gwenllian2001 said:

It still does. Walk down any street and you will be surrounded by other peoples exhaust fumes.

Click to expand...

All outdoors. Try using an exhaust indoors and see what the reaction would be, not to mention the COSHH assessment for using petrol (ie fume emitting) plant.

Gwenllian2001 said:

Ask any veteran teacher and they will tell you that the incidence of childhood asthma has shot up following the explosion of road traffic.

Click to expand...

Road traffic, (and train and plane for that matter), emissions have been heavily reduced per vehicle. Lead was removed years ago also.
It's too simple to just blame road traffic solely for this, and I'd love to see your evidence to attribute it to this cause alone, rather than your old wives tale.

Gwenllian2001 said:

It is reported that a million plus ex smokers are now using 'e' cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Not ex-smokers then, are they?
They are still chasing the nicotine hit, just in a different format.

If they were ex-smokers, they'd not be feeding their habit, period.

Gwenllian2001 said:

It is reported that a million plus ex smokers are now using 'e' cigarettes. It is not difficult to work out that the government is losing millions in taxes and the recent 'health scare' is a prelude to regulation, which really means taxation. So, to all you fine antis out there, be careful what you wish for. The lost revenue has to come from somewhere and if everyone gave up smoking the tax will have to be raised from another soft target. Energy supplies; motor fuel or how about VAT on train tickets?

Click to expand...

I would not have to raised from a soft target. It's likely to because of politics but it's not mandatory. Some of it could come from the NHS which would no longer have to deal with so many smokers. Money would be gained elsewhere with a rise in man-hours thanks to the elimination of smoking breaks (outside one's normal break/lunch). How about a levy on tobacco companies or a crackdown on tax avoidance? Bonuses to be taxed more?

To take your argument further should we repeal the Clean Air Act? After all industry contributes to the economy

If your argument is true what would the government stand to gain by endorsing various stop smoking campaigns? Costs to the NHS are medium/long term so won't bother the current government

Back on topic I don't really care. People would have to be pretty thick to see someone with an e-cigarette and think they could light up a regular one.

Gwenllian2001 said:

...or how about VAT on train tickets?

Click to expand...

Why not? Removing all VAT exemptions would create a simpler, more easily-enforceable taxation regime and raise billions in additional revenue for the government (albeit with a sizeable, but temporary, increase in the rate of inflation). There is no good reason why transport should be exempt from what is essentially a sales tax.

Marklund said:

Not ex-smokers then, are they?
They are still chasing the nicotine hit, just in a different format.

If they were ex-smokers, they'd not be feeding their habit, period.

Click to expand...

So you agree that people using e-cigarettes are smoking? And therefore the rail company can ban it?

From 2016, e-cigarettes are being reclassified as medicines. That could have interesting consequences - if they're made prescription medicines, then of course HM Treasury will pocket the fee on each script. Secondly, how long would it be before someone complains that they are being banned from taking their medicine....?!

EssexGonzo said:

Exactly.

The resistance to e cigarettes is based on illogical fear and prejudice.

If they ban these they should ban McDonalds and Burger King on trains - I'm fearful that they're harmful and I'm prejudiced against people who eat ****e food.

Click to expand...

Banning foul smelling junk food................great idea

I know nothing about e ciggies so I'll pass on that issue.

Banning Burger King would be a very good start...

What do I say about SR banning electronic cigarettes? Good. Smoking in any shape or form is a bad habit for yourself and those around you. I certainly don't want somebody sitting by me smoking one of those things. I know e ciggies are not exactly bad for you but why should you need one anyway?

Peter Mugridge said:

From 2016, e-cigarettes are being reclassified as medicines. That could have interesting consequences - if they're made prescription medicines, then of course HM Treasury will pocket the fee on each script. Secondly, how long would it be before someone complains that they are being banned from taking their medicine....?!

Click to expand...

Obviously it's too early to say anything with certainty but I thought it was to ensure consistent quality of the product rather than distribution.

ATWalex101 said:

What do I say about SR banning electronic cigarettes? Good. Smoking in any shape or form is a bad habit for yourself and those around you. I certainly don't want somebody sitting by me smoking one of those things. I know e ciggies are not exactly bad for you but why should you need one anyway?

Click to expand...

Presumably because real fags are worse than e ones

ATWalex101 said:

What do I say about SR banning electronic cigarettes? Good. Smoking in any shape or form is a bad habit for yourself and those around you. I certainly don't want somebody sitting by me smoking one of those things. I know e ciggies are not exactly bad for you but why should you need one anyway?

Click to expand...

Are you speaking from personal experience? If not, you seem to have missed the point. They do NOT emit smoke. They do NOT emit any odour. Someone using one is NOT smoking.

Gwenllian2001 said:

Are you speaking from personal experience? If not, you seem to have missed the point. They do NOT emit smoke. They do NOT emit any odour. Someone using one is NOT smoking.

Click to expand...

They do emit a very strong odour, I'm assuming you've never been next to someone smoking one of these for prolonged peiods?

Gwenllian2001 said:

Are you speaking from personal experience? If not, you seem to have missed the point. They do NOT emit smoke. They do NOT emit any odour. Someone using one is NOT smoking.

Click to expand...

Go to the toilets in my school then! loads of people sell them and test them in there and from what I see, they do emit smoke and they do smell!

I use an electronic cigarette as I am 20 days into cessation (going really well so far!). I find it completely baffling that places get funny about using them. I'm trying to stop smoking, to stop killing myself and others around me and I am being harassed as a consequence? The vapour doesn't smell and dissipates far quicker then actual smoke. If you had a room full of e-cig users there wouldn't be a cloud of smoke sitting above them. I think the whole thing about it is that they look like actual cigarettes, which I think is a bad idea, as for me at least, its the action of smoking rather then what it looks like, that is a good thing. Most of them have green lights at the end so theres no way you could mistake one for a real cigarette.

Gwenllian2001 said:

As far as the second point goes, that could apply to anything that might annoy another person. Stinking food is commonplace on trains as is the constant racket from mobile devices, particularly loud, one sided, conversations. There are endless possibilities for the busybodies of this world to complain about and I could go on all night enumerating them but why anyone should object to 'e' cigarettes is quite beyond me. What next? Are they going to ban people wearing nicotine patches or chewing nicotine gums?

I grew up in a country that prided itself on the freedom of the citizen. That country seems to have disappeared under a tide of American inspired 'political correctness'.

Click to expand...

Well said sir!

I despair about the way these 'Ban everything, it's not safe to be alive' people seem to have the whip hand today!

Marklund said:

Not ex-smokers then, are they?
They are still chasing the nicotine hit, just in a different format.

If they were ex-smokers, they'd not be feeding their habit, period.

Click to expand...

Except they're not smoking are they?

Peter Mugridge said:

if they're made prescription medicines, then of course HM Treasury will pocket the fee on each script

Click to expand...

Not in most of the area in which Scotrail operates.

ATWalex101 said:

What do I say about SR banning electronic cigarettes? Good. Smoking in any shape or form is a bad habit for yourself and those around you. I certainly don't want somebody sitting by me smoking one of those things. I know e ciggies are not exactly bad for you but why should you need one anyway?

Click to expand...

Ummm what effect does an E cigarette have on anyone around the user? There is no smoke. It's a steam vapour and contains no tar or carcinogens.

They are proven to work in getting people off cigarettes which do harm other people. and are easier to cut down with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ATWalex101 said:

Go to the toilets in my school then! loads of people sell them and test them in there and from what I see, they do emit smoke and they do smell!

Click to expand...

They DO NOT emit smoke. It IS NOT SMOKE. It is a steam vapour. They do however have a smell. I agree with you there.

cjmillsnun said:

Ummm what effect does an E cigarette have on anyone around the user? There is no smoke. It's a steam vapour and contains no tar or carcinogens.

They are proven to work in getting people off cigarettes which do harm other people. and are easier to cut down with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They DO NOT emit smoke. It IS NOT SMOKE. It is a steam vapour. They do however have a smell. I agree with you there.

Click to expand...

Does the vapour contain nicotine?

EssexGonzo said:

Exactly.

The resistance to e cigarettes is based on illogical fear and prejudice.

Click to expand...

Sorry to skip several pages of worthwhile (?) discussion, but there is a point to the BMA's stated desires to carry out proper peer-reviewed research.

The problem with e-fags is that until this research has been carried out there is no way of knowing what the health impacts are. I understand the mechanics of how they work, but is there still a risk of passive smoking if you sit near someone having an e-puff? No there is no smoke, but what about the nicotine? Is it all absorbed by the user or is it still carried on the breath? What happens when it is out in the atmosphere? Can it be inhaled by people nearby? And, if so, what effect might this have? Also, are there any differences in the effects of the nicotine presented by an e-fag as opposed to a regular fag? We don't know, which is why it is important that the research is done. The fact that they are not actually "smoking" may not be pertinent as they may still contain other chemicals that, when exhaled, can be harmful to people around.

Until such time I believe that it is an appropriate step to perhaps consider restricting the use of e-fags, certainly in potentially crowded and enclosed environments such as on trains.

The other thing that I want to point out is that the medical community usually knows what is and what is not good research. I heartily recommend everyone should go out and read Bad Science by Dr Ben Goldacre and find out more about it for yourselves. Bad research sticks out like a sore thumb. The problem is that the media and public are clueless and simply want simple correlations to help them live their lives, as does a lot of big business because it shifts stock of the latest pill, potion or lifestyle solution. Just because this particular research is called for in the field of tobacco it does not mean that it will be skewed. The reporting of it may indeed be skewed, but that does not mean that the research itself is defective.

Besides, it may be discovered that e-fags are safe and can be used without causing health problems to people around their users. I don't think the BMA are being killjoys, simply rigorous in calling for the research so that people using e-fags, those considering using them, those who live and work with e-fag users and those responsible for ensuring safety in public places (e.g. TOCs, employers, venue managers, etc) can make informed decisions. At the moment we're just arguing over details that may have no real bearing on the real health outcomes for users and those around them. Worryingly, a lot of it seems to be based on what the companies who manufacture and sell these devices are telling the public. That alone should be enough to sound a note of caution in any rational person's mind.

Lets get some research done and get some real answers backed up by hard facts and science.

O L Leigh

Tibbs said:

Does the vapour contain nicotine?

Click to expand...

It does and nicotine is extremely toxic with a little as 30mg being fatal. It has been used as a pesticide in the past, but is now banned as being far too indicriminately toxic.

The nicotine in patches and gum is carefully metered to keep it within acceptable safe dosing levels wheras these devices have not been adequately tested and no-one seems to know what kind of doses passera by might ingest from the vapor.

Nicotine itself is not addictive, only becoming so when combined with a MAOI, so for these devices to meet an addict's need, they must also contain MAOIs. MAOIs are themselves quote dangerous, for example they react with a substance present in dairy products to cause a rapid spike in high blood pressure.

Indeed much of the heart health risks associated with cigarettes arises from MAOIs rather than the smoke (which is mostly implicated in lung diseases).

There is indeed a quite urgent need to understand the doses of various drugs that both users and those nearby are ingesting from these devices, and also to understand what impact (if any) it has on humal health.

cjp said:

I am not a smoker but I see this as another restriction on liberties for no good reason.

I have therfore e-mailed Scotrail as follows.

My question is what gives you the right to restrict people in such a fashion? What condition of carriage or bylaw lets you do this?
Your power to prohibit smoking cigars, pipes or cigarettes comes from the Act giving you power to stop the smoking of tobacco. The so called e-cigarettes do not, as I understand it, involve tobacco.


I will let you know if and how they respond.

Click to expand...

Well this is what Scotrail have written to me . . .

Thank you for your email dated 14 June 2013 regarding our policy on e-cigarettes.

We have taken legal advice on this matter and believe we are within our rights to exclude e-cigarettes under the existing railway bylaw that refers to a "lighted item". The bylaw does not require the nature of the lighting to be an actual flame. In addition, the definition of "cigarette" in the bylaw is not restricted to a classic tobacco cigarette but covers any cigarette. There is no reference in fact to tobacco in the bylaw itself.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Should you need to reply to this email, please respond to [email protected].

Click to expand...

They ignored my point that the power to create bylaws comes from thr Railways Act and the 2005 Act sets out that [my bold]

46Bye-laws(1)A railway operator may make bye-laws regulating one or more of the following—
(a)the use and working of a relevant asset;
(b)travel on or by means of a relevant asset;
(c)the maintenance of order on relevant assets;
(d)the conduct of persons while on relevant assets.
(2)Those bye-laws may include, in particular—
(a)bye-laws with respect to tickets issued for entry on relevant assets or for travel by railway or with respect to evasion of the payment of fares or other charges;
(b)bye-laws with respect to the obstruction of a railway;
(c)bye-laws with respect to any other interference with the working of a railway, with a relevant asset or with the provision of a railway service;
(d)bye-laws prohibiting or restricting smoking in railway carriages and elsewhere;
(e)bye-laws for the prevention of nuisance;
(f)bye-laws with respect to the receipt and delivery of goods; and
(g)bye-laws for regulating the passage of bicycles and other vehicles on footways and other premises controlled by the railway operator in question and intended to be used by those on foot.
(3)Schedule 9 (which makes provisions about bye-laws under this section) has effect.
(4)Bye-laws which—
(a)were made by the Strategic Rail Authority under section 219 of the 2000 Act, and
(b)are in force immediately before the repeal of that section by this Act,
shall continue to have effect after the coming into force of that repeal as if every reference in those bye-laws to that Authority were a reference to the Secretary of State.

Click to expand...

and then there is the defintion of smoking from the Health Act 2006 - which introduce the smoking ban in building and vehicles - which expresses it smoking tobacco, tobacco containing things or other substances

Introduction
(1)This Chapter makes provision for the prohibition of smoking in certain premises, places and vehicles which are smoke-free by virtue of this Chapter.
(2)In this Chapter—
(a)“smoking” refers to smoking tobacco or anything which contains tobacco, or smoking any other substance, and
(b)smoking includes being in possession of lit tobacco or of anything lit which contains tobacco, or being in possession of any other lit substance in a form in which it could be smoked.
(3)In this Chapter, “smoke” and other related expressions are to be read in accordance with subsection (2).

Click to expand...

But as it cleverly defines smoking by a phrase which in itself contains the word smoking it does not itself answer what smoking is!:cry:

Looking over the ocean http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/smoking/ helpfully sets out a definition that

Smoking is the inhaling or tasting of smoke produced by burning substances, most commonly tobacco. It is one of the most common forms of recreational drug use. Tobacco smoking is the most popular form of smoking and is commonly smoked through cigarettes. Cannabis, Opium, Crack Cocaine, Heroin etc are also used for smoking but they are not as popular as tobacco. Because of the health hazards involved in smoking many countries have instituted high taxes on tobacco products.

Click to expand...

and ecigarettes, as I understand things, does not burn anything just heats up substances - as do many plug-in air "freshers/perfumers". It is not alight, as Scotrail suggests, anymore than an electric air fresher is alight. At best it is on or active.

I may go back to Scotrail but before I do any constructive thoughts or insights would be appreciated.

cjp said:

Well this is what Scotrail have written to me . . .

Click to expand...

Scotrail said:

We have taken legal advice on this matter and believe we are within our rights to exclude e-cigarettes under the existing railway bylaw that refers to a "lighted item". The bylaw does not require the nature of the lighting to be an actual flame. In addition, the definition of "cigarette" in the bylaw is not restricted to a classic tobacco cigarette but covers any cigarette. There is no reference in fact to tobacco in the bylaw itself.

Click to expand...

I did mention that fact!

transmanche said:

Well the bylaws don't actually mention tobacco:

3. No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed.​

Click to expand...

cjp said:

They ignored my point that the power to create bylaws comes from the Railways Act and the 2005 Act sets out that [my bold]

Click to expand...

Railways Act 2005 said:

(1)A railway operator may make bye-laws regulating one or more of the following—
(a)the use and working of a relevant asset;
(b)travel on or by means of a relevant asset;
(c)the maintenance of order on relevant assets;
(d)the conduct of persons while on relevant assets.
(2)Those bye-laws may include, in particular—

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, i don't think you have a valid objection to that. Look at what 1(b) says. If you're looking for permission to create a bylaw on e-cigarettes, that gives it.

Whilst section 2 is just listing specific items that Parliament expects the TOC to cover in the bylaws - it does not restrict the bylaws to cover those items only.

transmanche said:

Quite frankly, i don't think you have a valid objection to that. Look at what 1(b) says. If you're looking for permission to create a bylaw on e-cigarettes, that gives it.

.

Click to expand...

If anything I would have thought 1(d) conduct rather than 1(b) travel but I still think Scotrail are not right when they suggest they can ban ecigarettes on the grounds that they are lighted or lit articles as their response suggested.

The railways are not restricted to what Parliament has laid down. They're private undertakings. If they don't want to carry passengers juggling red spotted footballs whistling the theme tune to Z Cars, that's their prerogative. They don't need Parliament's permission to make rules like that.

cjp said:

If anything I would have thought 1(d) conduct rather than 1(b) travel but I still think Scotrail are not right when they suggest they can ban ecigarettes on the grounds that they are lighted or lit articles as their response suggested.

Click to expand...

Well it was my typo - but it's splitting hairs to argue on what precise grounds they can ban them. The fact is they can ban them.

Believe me these E-Cigarettes are no substitute for the real thing.....

Namely a fine product known as Benson and Hedges Gold manufactured in Northern Ireland by Gallaher/JTI and purchased by Butts in Luxembourg EU Duty Paid at half the price they are in the UK.

From my perspective it would be far worse for Scotrail to ban smoking on open platforms than these "sweet cigarettes" onboard.

However it does seem a little "nanny state" to prevent the use of these devices with the implication that people can't tell the difference between a toy and real cigarette.

Marklund said:

All outdoors. Try using an exhaust indoors and see what the reaction would be, not to mention the COSHH assessment for using petrol (ie fume emitting) plant.



Road traffic, (and train and plane for that matter), emissions have been heavily reduced per vehicle. Lead was removed years ago also.
It's too simple to just blame road traffic solely for this, and I'd love to see your evidence to attribute it to this cause alone, rather than your old wives tale.



Not ex-smokers then, are they?
They are still chasing the nicotine hit, just in a different format.

If they were ex-smokers, they'd not be feeding their habit, period.

Click to expand...

Technically, they are ex-smokers because using an e-cig is not smoking. It is deemed as 'vaping' because no smoke is involved. It is a vapour that is excreted that contains nicotine. Hence the term 'vaping'.

The liquid in e-cigs contains: Propylene Glycol, Vegetable Glycerine or Aqueous Glycerine, these are the dilutents which make up the main bulk of the liquid. Then liquid Nicotine is added and a flavouring. It is also worth noting that the ingredients used are all food grade/pharmaceutical grade.

cmjcf said:

The railways are not restricted to what Parliament has laid down. They're private undertakings. If they don't want to carry passengers juggling red spotted footballs whistling the theme tune to Z Cars, that's their prerogative. They don't need Parliament's permission to make rules like that.

Click to expand...

It's already against railway byelaws to sing if it causes annoyance to other passengers (that's the wording IIRC)

dysonsphere said:

LOL can you still buy that I thought they banned it years ago. I remember my grandfather using it. (im 55)

Click to expand...

Snuff is still available from proper tobacconists, plus the Rising Sun pub in Berkhamsted

I think this may be a First Group policy from Aberdeen as FCC have banned them as Scotrail has, think FGW and TPE will follow suit.