Vaping on Trains and vaping in general

[185143]

I was at Swansea once on the last train to Cardiff on a Sunday night. A few people were vaping on the platform and were told by security to stop. All but one of them did immediately with no hesitation or argument.

The lad that didn't stop kept doing it, kept being told not to. After being told for about the 7th time, they'd had enough and refused him travel. It was very good to see as he was just blatantly taking the piss out of the staff by that point.

 

[mrmartin]

This new demonisation of vaping is quite depressing given it has probably been one of if not the single biggest public health improvement over the last 10 years.

I'm sure there is a minute risk of potential illness from 2nd hand vapor, but compared to as others have pointed out general air pollution (especially on DMUs) it will be utterly tiny.

This knee jerk ban on vaping with no real evidence to back it up just because it happens to look like cigarette smoke is extremely unscientific and totalitarian.

Let's be clear, it is bad manners if someone is in close proximity in a packed train, but in my eyes no worse than eating a takeaway (actually worse for eg extreme peanut allergy sufferers).

At the very least they could introduce a vaping carriage or vestibule, and I'd like to see pubs roll back their blanket bans.

Regarding children getting addicted to them, yes, definitely not good but again, overall it's much better to be addicted to them than smoking (which has dropped massively in children since vaping came in). Especially given childhood smoking has such an oversized impact on lung development (which is very limited/non existent for vaping).

 

[matt_midd]

I remember commuting from Manc Victoria after work one day, a man got on the train and lit a cigarette. He smoked it to completion and proceeded to stub it out on the seat! To be honest, I was in disbelief at the utter disregard of safety and the lack of self awareness. I wear a quite distinctive work uniform so I gave a 'nod' to the platform staff who proceeded to tell the guard who then proceeded to come to the car. Long story short he was removed from the train and dealt with by BTP. Although vaping has not yet been proved to be as negative to one's health, I think vapers should still comply to the signage and announcements. If not to comply with them, but just out of decency for others. As mentioned above it could impact on other's respiratory conditions etc...

Is there no moderate view here? Disgusting, vile, etc really rather bizarre epithets for electronically heating a liquid and inhaling it. I don't vape because it seems a completely pointless thing to do to me - this visceral hatred though by half the posters is very strange. Am I missing something?

This new demonisation of vaping is quite depressing given it has probably been one of if not the single biggest public health improvement over the last 10 years

I do agree with the above however, as someone that does use vapes/e-cigs, they have been instrumental in stopping smoking for me, which as everyone knows is so far proven to be a lot worse.

 

[Thirteen]

This new demonisation of vaping is quite depressing given it has probably been one of if not the single biggest public health improvement over the last 10 years.

I'm sure there is a minute risk of potential illness from 2nd hand vapor, but compared to as others have pointed out general air pollution (especially on DMUs) it will be utterly tiny.

This knee jerk ban on vaping with no real evidence to back it up just because it happens to look like cigarette smoke is extremely unscientific and totalitarian.

Let's be clear, it is bad manners if someone is in close proximity in a packed train, but in my eyes no worse than eating a takeaway (actually worse for eg extreme peanut allergy sufferers).

At the very least they could introduce a vaping carriage or vestibule, and I'd like to see pubs roll back their blanket bans.

Regarding children getting addicted to them, yes, definitely not good but again, overall it's much better to be addicted to them than smoking (which has dropped massively in children since vaping came in). Especially given childhood smoking has such an oversized impact on lung development (which is very limited/non existent for vaping).

To me, the flavouring and bright colours which are clearly aimed at teenagers should be banned. I get it's not as bad as smoking but if somewhere says you cannot vape on their premises whether it's public transport or whatever then oblige by their rules and don't get upset if you get told off.

 

[mrmartin]

Is there no moderate view here? Disgusting, vile, etc really rather bizarre epithets for electronically heating a liquid and inhaling it. I don't vape because it seems a completely pointless thing to do to me - this visceral hatred though by half the posters is very strange. Am I missing something?

Now that said it also shouldn't be being done because it's against the rules and funny smells aren't ideal. I have some sympathy for the addicts though if it's on a journey longer than... well, I dunno exactly - how long does nicotine withdrawal take to kick in? Let's say 4 hours at a guess. Not feeding an addiction isn't fun and I would rather the addicts were kept saited if reasonably practical.

This leads me to simple conclusion - perhaps we should introduce a vaping carriage or compartment on long distance trains?

I think the problem is this forum tends to attract people on some level of autistic spectrum (I'm one of them!) and extreme insensitivity to smells and noise is one of the symptoms.

Btw nicotine is very short acting, its half life is 1-2 hours, so you go into withdrawal in 30-60 minutes for heavier smokers. This is why 20 cigs a day is such a common usage pattern as that's a cigarette every 45 minutes or so which keeps your nicotine levels pretty stable.

 

[Aviator88]

This new demonisation of vaping is quite depressing given it has probably been one of if not the single biggest public health improvement over the last 10 years.

Regarding children getting addicted to them, yes, definitely not good but again, overall it's much better to be addicted to them than smoking (which has dropped massively in children since vaping came in). Especially given childhood smoking has such an oversized impact on lung development (which is very limited/non existent for vaping).

Alas, that's the clincher. As a nicotine replacement, it's been revolutionary in taking multiple generations of smokers off the burning leaf, and has probably saved the global health care systems billions.

But when you see 14 year olds blowing clouds walking down the street, for no other reason than to look cool, it puts it in serious danger of overregulation. I can't remember where it was, but I read a story about a government recently saying they would be banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 'x' date. Running with that, and extending it to e-cigs, is a sensible compromise in my opinion.

 

[mrmartin]

Alas, that's the clincher. As a nicotine replacement, it's been revolutionary in taking multiple generations of smokers off the burning leaf, and has probably saved the global health care systems billions.

But when you see 14 year olds blowing clouds walking down the street, for no other reason than to look cool, it puts it in serious danger of overregulation. I can't remember where it was, but I read a story about a government recently saying they would be banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 'x' date. Running with that, and extending it to e-cigs, is a sensible compromise in my opinion.

But it's extremely likely that the same child would be smoking a cigarette instead. Keep in mind only 20 years ago the child smoking rate was 19% - one in 5 under 16s (tobacco age was 16 back then!). It's now 4% in 2018, almost at the point of complete eradication, which was unthinkable back then. The child vaping rate is somewhere around the 7% mark, so even combining them and we've had the sharpest fall in child nicotine use ever.

Let's be really clear, even if 100% of the UK population vaped, it would be better for the countries overall health than having just 5% of the population smoke instead. I think the scale of improvement health wise vaping gives is under appreciated. It's at least 95% safer than smoking and probably much more than that, at which point it is getting to caffeine levels of health risks imo.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This knee jerk ban on vaping with no real evidence to back it up just because it happens to look like cigarette smoke is extremely unscientific and totalitarian.

It was a few years ago now so I can't remember the exact dates and timings but when the smoking legislation came into effect Scotrail still permitted smoking on open platforms. A few years later when all this anti-vaping mania hit they banned vaping on stations along with stations in England and Wales. Subsequently they have banned smoking on open platforms but there was a period in Scotland where smoking was permitted but vaping was banned. You couldn't make some of the nonsense up.

 

[Thirteen]

Nobody wants vaping banned completely, just that it needs to be treated like smoking in public places and spaces and that's fair enough.

 

[Aviator88]

But it's extremely likely that the same child would be smoking a cigarette instead. Keep in mind only 20 years ago the child smoking rate was 19% - one in 5 under 16s (tobacco age was 16 back then!). It's now 4% in 2018, almost at the point of complete eradication, which was unthinkable back then. The child vaping rate is somewhere around the 7% mark, so even combining them and we've had the sharpest fall in child nicotine use ever.

Let's be really clear, even if 100% of the UK population vaped, it would be better for the countries overall health than having just 5% of the population smoke instead. I think the scale of improvement health wise vaping gives is under appreciated. It's at least 95% safer than smoking and probably much more than that, at which point it is getting to caffeine levels of health risks imo.

Some good arguments there - I'll have to have a dive into the figures properly sometime myself

 

[Thirteen]

There's no chance that TOCs will introduce vaping carriages or vestibules. There's no incentive for them to do so.

 

[Egg Centric]

has probably saved the global health care systems billions.

Probably not - smoking is very good for global health care financially, at least if appropriately taxed! This is due to smokers being killed off fairly cheaply rather than dragging on the health service for decades with much more complicated and expensive illnesses like non-smokers.

Same for obesity incidentally although that one is a bit more complicated as the annual cost for the obese is higher, but they (we!) die sooner so total life cost cheaper.

Btw nicotine is very short acting, its half life is 1-2 hours, so you go into withdrawal in 30-60 minutes for heavier smokers. This is why 20 cigs a day is such a common usage pattern as that's a cigarette every 45 minutes or so which keeps your nicotine levels pretty stable.

How does sleep work, out of interest?

 

[Jimini]

Probably not - smoking is very good for global health care financially, at least if appropriately taxed! This is due to smokers being killed off fairly cheaply rather than dragging on the health service for decades with much more complicated and expensive illnesses like non-smokers.

I'm not exactly proud of him for this, but my Father is 73 now and has smoked since he was in his early teens. He's been in and out of hospital since his late 50s with various lung issues (COPD being the main one). Still insists on smoking ~20 a day. Even asked me to smuggle five packets in one time when he had a tube hanging out of his side pumping the water out of his lungs -- he even insisted on carrying his medical kit outside so he could have a smoke, whilst wearing nothing more than his PJs, a dressing gown, and a pair of crocs!

Long (lung?) story short -- don't doubt the stubbornness of that generation, and also their resilience. All that said, despite the huge weight they (he) put(s) on the NHS, he still soldiers on. Only a sample size of one, but I see plenty of similar cases on his ward when I visit him after being admitted.

 

[matt_midd]

Probably not - smoking is very good for global health care financially, at least if appropriately taxed! This is due to smokers being killed off fairly cheaply rather than dragging on the health service for decades with much more complicated and expensive illnesses like non-smokers.

Same for obesity incidentally although that one is a bit more complicated as the annual cost for the obese is higher, but they (we!) die sooner so total life cost cheaper.



How does sleep work, out of interest?

Done some maths:

• Avg life expectancy of a non-smoker in the UK: 80yrs
• Avg life expectancy of a smoker in the UK: 70yrs (10 years less)
• Avg amount of smokers in the UK: 6.6m - 13.3% of the UK

Now, each year 76,000 people die from smoking, which is only 1.15% of smokers and 0.11% of the UKs population. That leaves around 6,524,000 smoking people alive (in theory...).

The remaining 6.5m people are left with an over 60% increased chance of Lung Cancer, a 9 in 10 risk of COPD, and over 50 other smoking-related diseases; All of which would cost the NHS significant resources. It is estimated that smoking costs the NHS £2.6b per year, or close to £400 per smoker which has remained alive.

Onto the tax side of things, the govt receive £12b per year from the sale of cigarettes/tobacco, and spends 11.9% of the UKs gross domestic product on the healthcare system. Hypothetically, thats £1.4bn that goes from the sale of cigarrettes/tobacco to the NHS. Per capita, that translates to £21 pounds per head for healthcare spending from the duty/tax imposed on the sales. This leaves a defecit of £379 per smoker, or £2.4b in healthcare costs caused by smoking.

This has been a wild 1am ride into morbid figures - I need medicating haha...

 

[Egg Centric]

Done some maths:

• Avg life expectancy of a non-smoker in the UK: 80yrs
• Avg life expectancy of a smoker in the UK: 70yrs (10 years less)
• Avg amount of smokers in the UK: 6.6m - 13.3% of the UK

Now, each year 76,000 people die from smoking, which is only 1.15% of smokers and 0.11% of the UKs population. That leaves around 6,524,000 smoking people alive (in theory...).

The remaining 6.5m people are left with an over 60% increased chance of Lung Cancer, a 9 in 10 risk of COPD, and over 50 other smoking-related diseases; All of which would cost the NHS significant resources. It is estimated that smoking costs the NHS £2.6b per year, or close to £400 per smoker which has remained alive.

Onto the tax side of things, the govt receive £12b per year from the sale of cigarettes/tobacco, and spends 11.9% of the UKs gross domestic product on the healthcare system. Hypothetically, thats £1.4bn that goes from the sale of cigarrettes/tobacco to the NHS. Per capita, that translates to £21 pounds per head for healthcare spending from the duty/tax imposed on the sales. This leaves a defecit of £379 per smoker, or £2.4b in healthcare costs caused by smoking.

This has been a wild 1am ride into morbid figures - I need medicating haha...

Your analysis has completely forgotten that everyone dies of something, often lingering on for a while and costing very much while they're doing that. Those avg 70- avg 80 year olds are not free to the NHS (or pension system, etc). In an "ideal world" (unfortunate phrasing but hopefully you see what I'm getting at) everyone would drop dead the moment they're no longer economically active, of something fairly instantaneous. The average smoker is far more likely to "achieve" that than the average non smoker.

It's not even slightly controversial amongst economists that smoking - at western taxation rates - is a net benefit to healthcare/social costs.

(This is not advocating smoking of course - on topic for the site this sort of logic would lead to Serpell++ for a start!)

 

[43066]

But it's extremely likely that the same child would be smoking a cigarette instead. Keep in mind only 20 years ago the child smoking rate was 19% - one in 5 under 16s (tobacco age was 16 back then!). It's now 4% in 2018, almost at the point of complete eradication, which was unthinkable back then. The child vaping rate is somewhere around the 7% mark, so even combining them and we've had the sharpest fall in child nicotine use ever.

Let's be really clear, even if 100% of the UK population vaped, it would be better for the countries overall health than having just 5% of the population smoke instead. I think the scale of improvement health wise vaping gives is under appreciated. It's at least 95% safer than smoking and probably much more than that, at which point it is getting to caffeine levels of health risks imo.

But none of this is relevant to whether vaping should or shouldn’t be allowed on trains, because nobody is suggesting that smoking should be allowed where vaping isn’t. It isn’t a case of choosing between them, in a case of neither being tolerated.

Vaping is better than smoking also isn’t relevant to those who start vaping who have never smoked. As I pointed out upthread, there’s a reason why tobacco companies have got behind vaping, and it isn’t because they’re concerned for the health of smokers…

It is estimated that smoking costs the NHS £2.6b per year, or close to £400 per smoker which has remained alive.

Onto the tax side of things, the govt receive £12b per year from the sale of cigarettes/tobacco, and spends 11.9% of the UKs gross domestic product on the healthcare system.

You’re assuming only 11.9% of the duty raised is spent on NHS costs, but that overlooks the fact that the duty is much higher than it is for most products specifically to address those costs. On that basis it’s clear that smoking generates a “profit” in healthcare terms.

It's not even slightly controversial amongst economists that smoking - at western taxation rates - is a net benefit to healthcare/social costs.

Indeed. Stands to reason when smokers contribute a great deal of duty and then die young!

 

[Aaron1]

As a moderate vaper and a moderate drinker, i vape and drink alcohol out of habit as I like it rather than being addicted.

I have occasionally had the odd puff standing on the platform or whilst on the train but I always ensure there is nobody with in the immediate vicinity, not to avoid detection but so the vapor doesn't fly about in somebody's face who doesn't want it, I have been asked by a BTP officer to desist once and I did so immediately, I don't think that is an issue.

As for drinking alcohol, I often drink alcohol on a train journey, I don't go chucking it about, I don't go abusing other passengers intoxicated, I just quietly mind my own business drinking and I certainly know my limit, where's the issue in that?

 

[Krokodil]

I think you might struggle to convince a magistrate that someone engaging in a perfectly legal activity the NHS is actively encouraging people to take up is wilfully interfering with people's comfort unless they are doing something like deliberately exhaling the vapour into the person opposite's face and smirking.

I don't need to convince a magistrate. It's not like you see people prosecuted for smoking on trains, they're just chucked off. A passenger did once (when leaving a late night train) report to me that someone had been vaping. I went down, found the man, challenged him, and his girlfriend confiscated his vape.

I am certain the smell of Fish and Chips is less harmful

Except where it encourages me to buy some.

I can't remember where it was, but I read a story about a government recently saying they would be banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 'x' date.

New Zealand

 

[Thirteen]

I think we're going to see tougher restrictions on Vapes, it's shocking how many under 18s have them.

 

[Egg Centric]

I think we're going to see tougher restrictions on Vapes, it's shocking how many under 18s have them.

I agree with you. Just needs the right kind of tabloid hysteria. And as usual with poorly thought through reactions to substance abuse it will make things worse in pretty much every respect.

Obviously it is theoretically possible it will be well thought through but lol

 

[Thirteen]

Looks like the end is nigh for disposable vapes as the UK Government is set to ban them as early as next week.

 

[Kite159]

Looks like the end is nigh for disposable vapes as the UK Government is set to ban them as early as next week.

Cue the ban being poorly written and the current disposable vapes getting modified so they get classed as reusable as you can refill them (but vast majority of people won't as the liquid used to refill them will cost a lot more than a new one)

 

[1D54]

You can buy a couple of pods for a fiver a time so not really that much dearer. As for banning disposable ones, it'll make little difference as AUS are finding out!

 

[Simon11]

As someone who does a litter pick regularly, I will be glad to see this!

Only just done an hour's pick and found at least 10 of these things chucked in our local wildlife park.

Still yet to see a ban for the huge laughing gas canisters which are very heavy- usually get a few of these each week as well.

 

[Mikey C]

Disposable vapes are environmentally horrendous, so need to be banned for that reason alone.

 

[Parjon]

Is there no moderate view here? Disgusting, vile, etc really rather bizarre epithets for electronically heating a liquid and inhaling it. I don't vape because it seems a completely pointless thing to do to me - this visceral hatred though by half the posters is very strange. Am I missing something?

Now that said it also shouldn't be being done because it's against the rules and funny smells aren't ideal. I have some sympathy for the addicts though if it's on a journey longer than... well, I dunno exactly - how long does nicotine withdrawal take to kick in? Let's say 4 hours at a guess. Not feeding an addiction isn't fun and I would rather the addicts were kept saited if reasonably practical.

This leads me to simple conclusion - perhaps we should introduce a vaping carriage or compartment on long distance trains?

I don't mind people inhaling their silly mist.

I object to them exhaling it, creating a floating cloud of moist germ ridden spores which is akin to being covered in a slow motion sneeze. Only with significantly higher volume.

Hope that gives you something to ponder next time your entire head is caught in the middle of a cloud of someone else's spittle.

Regarding children getting addicted to them, yes, definitely not good but again, overall it's much better to be addicted to them than smoking (which has dropped massively in children since vaping came in). Especially given childhood smoking has such an oversized impact on lung development (which is very limited/non existent for vaping).

People with scarred lungs are already being seen in hospitals.

Vaping may prove in time to be devastating to health, especially given how widely it is being used by young people, and the different way in which it can be overconsumed vs smoking.

 

[Archvile]

Hope that gives you something to ponder next time your entire head is caught in the middle of a cloud of someone else's spittle.

This being in stark contrast to the invisible clouds of dank lung gas people expel around you every time you step on public transport, eh?

Particulates (brake/tyre dust), dioxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, benzene, sulfides, acetaldehyde, dioxins, lead, cadmium, arsenic... All present in significant levels in the air you breath in any city.

You really shouldn't be worried about the hipster and his ornate vapey thing... ironically, it's the least harmful contaminant that happens to offer the greatest visual cue as to its presence.

The hipster is your friend!
 

 

[Egg Centric]

Looks like the end is nigh for disposable vapes as the UK Government is set to ban them as early as next week.

?????

Have no problem with them being banned (love drugs, hate littering) but they are not a national emergency, are we seriously trying to legislate something in a week? And if so, why this? That's stupid, they'll screw it up.

 

[dangie]

As someone who does a litter pick regularly, I will be glad to see this!

Only just done an hour's pick and found at least 10 of these things chucked in our local wildlife park.

This unfortunately appears to be a problem with smoking (smokers) in general. One only has to look around the floors of smoking areas to see they are incapable of depositing the fag-ends into the bins provided.

 

[mrmartin]

As someone who does a litter pick regularly, I will be glad to see this!

Only just done an hour's pick and found at least 10 of these things chucked in our local wildlife park.

Still yet to see a ban for the huge laughing gas canisters which are very heavy- usually get a few of these each week as well.

Have you not noticed a big reduction in cigarette ends though? Seems to have dropped off substantially as vaping has increased and it's a lot easier to pick up a handful of disposable vapes vs thousands of tiny fag ends surely?

Regardless banning them is incredibly dumb. Why not just have a simple deposit scheme on them, say £1? I guarantee that will reduce the amount on the ground massively - firstly by people being less likely to drop them, and secondly by others picking them up as soon as they see them!

Vaping has been, by far, the most successful public health innovation probably in a century. I cannot understand how we are so willing to send thousands of people to their death by banning disposables (and it will be at least that many as disposables are the first step for most to stop smoking. Most do not buy complex kits to start with).