# New York City Council bans e-cigarettes from public spaces



## editor (Dec 20, 2013)

NY was ahead of us with the smoking ban too, so this could also be heading to the UK eventually. 





> The New York City Council has voted to add electronic cigarettes to the city's strict smoking ban.
> 
> Outgoing mayor Michael Bloomberg's detractors have derided him for trying to impose a "nanny state" in America's largest city, pointing to his bans on smoking, trans fats and the attempt to limit the sale of large sugary drinks. Public health advocates have applauded those same efforts.
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...votes-to-add-e-cigarettes-to-smoking-ban.html


----------



## abe11825 (Dec 20, 2013)

Fuck sake. I can see harm in actual smoking in public spaces - second hand smoke and all that jazz. But honestly, vaping has no effect on anyone's health except the person smoking it. Putting a ban in public places would hinder people's over all enjoyment of where ever they are. A lot of smokers I know, enjoy having something to smoke as they stroll thru the park or go for a swim. Sure, paper smokes got outlawed, but ecigs? Where's the fucking harm??? It's not being littered on the pavement, it's not being blown in people's faces.... Fuck Bloomberg.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 20, 2013)

The politics of posturing.

If cigarettes etc are such a peril, make them illegal, and give up suckling on the tax-teat that they provide to governments.


----------



## vornstyle76 (Apr 2, 2014)

Wales looks like its heading for a public places ban. I swear, if they end up proper banning or mega-taxing these things I will go on a public place rampage. It's like a plot to turn otherwise well-adjusted people into cranky libertarians.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

its more likely the tobacco companies putting pressure on the various govts as they are still really powerful, the whole smoking ban was about second hand smoke, smell and health issues on those who dont smoke, as frogwoman said its harning no one else but the vaper.

And what about all the medicinal THC vapes going about in the states, ? there are vape bars springin up, but does that now mean these are illegal ?

1 step forward....


----------



## scifisam (Apr 2, 2014)

Stupid, stupid law. And it'll just make more people smoke - why bother getting an e-cig if you can't use it any more places than you can a real one?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

ffs. IT'S NOT SMOKE!


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> And what about all the medicinal THC vapes going about in the states, ? there are vape bars springin up, but does that now mean tese are illegal ?
> 
> 1 step forward....



This is New York only. Medical marijuana (or indeed any marijuana) is not legal in New York anyway.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

ah ok , its still a stupid law, pressured in by tobacco lobbyists


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

Bans are creeping in here now, too, with more pubs banning them. There is simply no reason behind these bans. No science, no evidence of any harm to anyone other than the vaper. No stinky fumes. Nothing. Just the most effective fag-substitute ever invented.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

this is why its being banned, tere is more going on than pseudo health concerns.

The tobacoo industry is still very very powerful and rich


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> this is why its being banned, tere is more going on than pseudo health concerns.


There must be, although some very misguided people are pushing for restrictions on efags for health reasons. The melodrama here is justified, I think: If you're allowed to put 'smoking kills' on fag packets, I see no reason why you can't say 'Banning efags kills' too. It's a pretty simple equation.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs. IT'S NOT SMOKE!


People say that but I can completely understand why people object in enclosed spaces. It releases vapour containing a psychoactive drug and other compounds that haven't been tested properly. I prefer my efag to analogue cigarettes but if I wasn't a smoker I would object too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> People say that but I can completely understand why people object in enclosed spaces. It releases vapour containing a psychoactive drug and other compounds that haven't been tested properly. I prefer my efag to analogue cigarettes but if I wasn't a smoker I would object too.



If you weren't a smoker, you'd object to someone doing something that you can't smell and almost certainly has no effect at all on your health? Efag vapour has been tested and found to have only trace amounts of the known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. The nature of the vapour is that it disperses very quickly once breathed out, so the mechanism by which these trace chemicals might enter the lungs of other people is also far from clear. 

It is very likely that you will breathe in more harmful things just from general pollution, and that adding some traces left from vaping will make no measurable difference at all. If I weren't a smoker who's switched to efags, I'd take exactly the same position, and be very pleased to see my friends making the switch.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you weren't a smoker, you'd object to someone doing something that you can't smell and almost certainly has no effect at all on your health? Efag vapour has been tested and found to have only trace amounts of the known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. The nature of the vapour is that it disperses very quickly once breathed out, so the mechanism by which these trace chemicals might enter the lungs of other people is also far from clear.
> 
> It is very likely that you will breathe in more harmful things just from general pollution, and that adding some traces left from vaping will make no measurable difference at all. If I weren't a smoker who's switched to efags, I'd take exactly the same position, and be very pleased to see my friends making the switch.



I'm watching e-fag vapour coming out of my mouth right now and it looks exactly like smoke. I'm struggling to see how the dispersal is any different. It clears quicker cause it doesn't have big chunks of burnt stuff in it. My colleagues and wife have also reported that it does have a distinctive scent. So yes, I probably would object. I object to pollution all the time too so I don't see what that's got to do with it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

It doesn't have the products of combustion in it, hence it is not smoke. And it is the products of combustion that cause the health damage.

Farting will cause more harm. The vapour from cleaning fluids will cause more harm. 

Don't sit next to anyone drinking coffee - those vapour fumes contain traces of caffeine. 

The idea that a drinker in a bar ought to be at all worried about vaping is simply not sensible. There are far more toxins in the drink. Or in their food.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't have the products of combustion in it, hence it is not smoke. And it is the products of combustion that cause the health damage.
> 
> Farting will cause more harm. The vapour from cleaning fluids will cause more harm.
> 
> ...



And if I read that with a link to anything like a proper scientific analysis rather than just the opinion of some random on the internet I'll be happy to adjust my opinion.

And what about planes?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> And if I read that with a link to anything like a proper scientific analysis rather than just the opinion of some random on the internet I'll be happy to adjust my opinion.


My previous post contains a study analysing efag vapour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> And if I read that with a link to anything like a proper scientific analysis rather than just the opinion of some random on the internet I'll be happy to adjust my opinion.
> 
> And what about planes?


What about planes? I've given you a study analysing the presence of known harmful chemicals from cigarette smoke. They are barely there at all. The science all points towards 'passive vaping' causing no harm whatever.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My previous post contains a study analysing efag vapour.


A study that tells me several toxic substances are present in measurable amounts.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What about planes?



Recycled air supply is bad enough already without adding anything IMO.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Recycled air supply is bad enough already without adding anything IMO.


They should ban hot coffee from planes, then, too. To be consistent.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They should ban hot coffee from planes, then, too. To be consistent.


The conclusion of your link is:



> E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.



Which I agree with 100%. And until that's been done people have aright to base their opinions on their common sense and feelings on the matter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> The conclusion of your link is:
> 
> 
> 
> Which I agree with 100%. And until that's been done people have aright to base their opinions on their common sense and feelings on the matter.


They're cautious scientists. But should policy be based on the common sense of people who haven't studied the issue, or the best evidence from those who have?

In short, should _you_ simply be allowed to tell _me_ to stop doing something just based on some vague (and quite probably misinformed) feeling you have?


----------



## wtfftw (Apr 2, 2014)

I vaped on a plane. Just don't exhale straight away and there's no vapour.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're cautious scientists. But should policy be based on the common sense of people who haven't studied the issue, or the best evidence from those who have?


Best evidence from those who have obviously but until that evidence is available, and the studies are only starting to be done, people have the right to exercise caution.


----------



## souljacker (Apr 2, 2014)

wtfftw said:


> I vaped on a plane. Just don't exhale straight away and there's no vapour.



Me too, although I went to the loo to do it. First plane journey in years that I actually enjoyed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

wtfftw said:


> I vaped on a plane. Just don't exhale straight away and there's no vapour.


Me too!


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

wtfftw said:


> I vaped on a plane. Just don't exhale straight away and there's no visible vapour.



Fixed. Every time you breathe out there's vapour of _some kind_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Fixed. Every time you breathe out there's vapour of _some kind_.


And there you go. With nasty CO2 in it and other toxins that your body is getting rid of.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

souljacker said:


> Me too, although I went to the loo to do it. First plane journey in years that I actually enjoyed.


400mg of tramadol and a nicotine inhaler = best flight ever (12 hour flight not 400mg all at once).


----------



## scifisam (Apr 2, 2014)

Vapiing doesn't produce something that looks like or acts like smoke. It looks like steam, like from a kettle, but without the heat.



wtfftw said:


> I vaped on a plane. Just don't exhale straight away and there's no vapour.



Vapes on a Plane! Good sequel title.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

i tested e cigs in 1999 for a market research company, during this time the were being tested very thoroughly for health concerns, if there was any major danger they would have be banned years ago if not never released in the first place.

Its a perception thing, we cant have them at our desks at work just because of the perception,although that is being challenge, because of how it makes other people feel mentally not their physical health, which is just daft


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

There's a reason it doesn't set off the (very sensitive) smoke alarms in plane loos. It doesn't contain the particulates that set these alarms off. It also doesn't contain the nasties like carbon monoxide. Really, really, worrying about the health concerns of passive vaping has no basis.

On a wider issue, this knee-jerk 'if in doubt, ban it' position worries me. Micro-managing other people's behaviour is becoming more and more acceptable. Piss off!

Smoking is banned, so just _looking like you're smoking_ to some people gets banned. It's bonkers.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Smoking is banned, so just _looking like you're smoking_ to some people gets banned. It's bonkers.


 

innit, it takes the piss.

a much safer alternative to something that kills people is still vilified


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> innit, it takes the piss.
> 
> a much safer alternative to something that kills people is still vilified


Why can't you just give up properly like nice people do? Eh?

Instead of _cheating_.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

I have already given up smoking, but I'm not that nice , I personally use a vape for my medicinal needs, no tobacco at all comes near me  and i think this ban is fucking stupid,its another rule that is not necessary , just becuase some people dont like what other people look like whilst minding thier own business


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

For the record I think banning it from 90% of public spaces is ridiculous but I also think the kneejerk reaction of 'it must be ok, it's just steam innit, here's one link that I say supports my point of view so that's _*science*_' is just as fucking ridiculous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> For the record I think banning it from 90% of public spaces is ridiculous but I also think the kneejerk reaction of 'it must be ok, it's just steam innit, here's one link that I say supports my point of view so that's _*science*_' is just as fucking ridiculous.


That's not my reaction. I can show you other links as well, if you like, showing the contents of the vapour and their likely effect on others around you. I looked into this a while ago and the solid evidence is rather scant, but the testing that has been done so far shows what that link I gave you shows.

It's also worth looking up cigarette smoke and seeing what it is that damages health and how it does this. Looking that up will show you how different vapour is from smoke. I didn't realise that nicotine wasn't the major carcinogen in cigarette smoke, for instance, before I read up on it. It is above all _the products of combustion_ that fuck you up. There is no combustion involved in vaping.

btw, 'more research is needed' is a very typical signing off note for scientific papers. Saying this doesn't negate the findings presented.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not my reaction. I can show you other links as well, if you like, showing the contents of the vapour and their likely effect on others around you. I looked into this a while ago and the solid evidence is rather scant, but the testing that has been done so far shows what that link I gave you shows.


Equally, there's a lot of bollocks spoken about them that has come from the mouths of efag salespeople. My old manager told me that they're alright because 'the nicotine doesn't stick to the walls and ceilings like with fags, it all falls on the floor'.

My position is 'initial reports are positive but the jury's still out, people have the right to exercise caution'. Banning them from open spaces is beyond ridiculous. Smoking them on planes is irresponsible until more info is in.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> My position is 'initial reports are positive but the jury's still out, people have the right to exercise caution'. Banning them from open spaces is beyond ridiculous. Smoking them on planes is irresponsible until more info is in.



this is a sensible outlook


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Equally, there's a lot of bollocks spoken about them that has come from the mouths of efag salespeople. My old manager told me that they're alright because 'the nicotine ndoesn't stick to the walls and ceilings like with fags, it all falls on the floor'.
> 
> My position is 'initial reports are positive but the jury's still out, people have the right to exercise caution'. Banning them from open spaces is beyond ridiculous. Smoking them on planes is irresponsible until more info is in.


It's not smoking. Using them on planes almost certainly isn't doing anyone else any harm at all. I agree that efag sales people oversell their case by describing efags as harmless. They're not totally harmless (to the vaper) - nicotine raises your blood pressure, for instance, and there is evidence that the water vapour itself can reduce your lung capacity at least temporarily.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

Rather hypocritically I'm typing this in an office full of non-smokers while puffing on a big e-fag. In my defense they've all said that they'd rather that than I disappear outside 15 times a day.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Rather hypocritically I'm typing this in an office full of non-smokers while puffing on a big e-fag. In my defense they've all said that they'd rather that than I disappear outside 15 times a day.


 I'm doing exactly the same thing.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not smoking. Using them on planes almost certainly isn't doing anyone else any harm at all.



You don't know that. You may believe it but you don't know it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> You don't know that. You may believe it but you don't know it.


I don't know it, no. But the evidence I have looked at indicates a strong reason to believe it is likely to be true. That's how scientific evidence works - you don't prove negatives.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> For the record I think banning it from 90% of public spaces is ridiculous but I also think the kneejerk reaction of 'it must be ok, it's just steam innit, here's one link that I say supports my point of view so that's _*science*_' is just as fucking ridiculous.



It's not a kneejerk reaction, it's based on basic science. There just isn't anything in e-cigs that could harm anyone around them. There have been tons of studies on e-cigs, but they were done for the look of it really, since the basic constituents and their effects are well known and putting them in something that resembles a cigarette doesn't change their chemistry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

Absence of scientific proof that there is no harm at all in passive vaping isn't the same as absence of scientific evidence that shows that passive vaping is nothing like passive smoking in terms of what you are likely to be inhaling and the damage that may cause. The latter evidence already exists in spades, due in most part to the studies done on the harm of smoke.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

Someone's going to have to explain something to me.  Why would tobacco companies be lobbying for a ban?  This is the same tobacco companies who manufacture ecigs and advertise them on telly, right?  The fuck would they care which method of ingestion you use, as long as you stay hooked?

As for the notion that you can't smell someone's ecig, utter tosh.  They smell rank, especially when you're sat next to someone chonging away and churning out sickly sweet strawberry and vanilla shite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> As for the notion that you can't smell someone's ecig, utter tosh.  They smell rank, especially when you're sat next to someone chonging away and churning out sickly sweet strawberry and vanilla shite.


I have one that I specifically chose because others can't smell it. I've asked non-smokers around me and they've confirmed it.

Even with the flavoured ones, it's totally different from smoke, which will stink a whole room for days.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have one that I specifically chose because others can't smell it. I've asked non-smokers around me and they've confirmed it.
> 
> Even with the flavoured ones, it's totally different from smoke, which will stink a whole room for days.



Entirely possible, but I have *never* been next to anyone with an ecig I couldn't smell.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Someone's going to have to explain something to me.  Why would tobacco companies be lobbying for a ban?  This is the same tobacco companies who manufacture ecigs and advertise them on telly, right?  The fuck would they care which method of ingestion you use, as long as you stay hooked?



Well if everyone switched tomorrow the vast majority of their farms, factories and distribution networks would be instantly redundant. They may like it as a sideline and they might want to establish their brands in the new market but they have no advantage over any other company other than brand recognition. And losing the analogue fag market would probably bankrupt them entirely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well if everyone switched tomorrow the vast majority of their farms, factories and distribution networks would be instantly redundant. They may like it as a sideline and they might want to establish their brands in the new market but they have no advantage over any other company other than brand recognition. And losing the analogue fag market would probably bankrupt them entirely.


And the cheaper stuff I buy off the internet isn't made by the big tobacco companies. They're furiously playing catch-up.


----------



## xenon (Apr 2, 2014)

Imagine all that time bosses have won back from smokers now using ecigs. Unless they've been foolish enough to ban them in the work place. 

I'm not a heavy user but only place I've been told I can't vape was in Wetherspoons. The next time I went there, I was more discrete. I don't vape if people are eating on the same table as me.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well if everyone switched tomorrow the vast majority of their farms, factories and distribution networks would be instantly redundant. They may like it as a sideline and they might want to establish their brands in the new market but they have no advantage over any other company other than brand recognition. And losing the analogue fag market would probably bankrupt them entirely.



I can't see that any of that would bother them, tbh.  After all, they'd surely just lay off their workers and liquidqte the assets while counting the cash from their ecig enterpris?

I imagine the only people concerned about people switching to ecigs are the governments who are as addicted to nicotine as smokers.

edit:  where they are lobbying, imo, is in encouraging the notion that the market should be better regulated to ensure that only quality ecigs are available. Quality presumably meaning the ones they make and sell.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> Imagine all that time bosses have won back from smokers now using ecigs. Unless they've been foolish enough to ban them in the work place.
> 
> I'm not a heavy user but only place I've been told I can't vape was in Wetherspoons. The next time I went there, I was more discrete. I don't vape if people are eating on the same table as me.


Fullers pubs have banned them now, too. I'm the same, though. Unfortunately, the ones like mine that look like felt-tip pens are being recognised more widely now. Just six months ago, few people knew what they were.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> I can't see that any of that would bother them, tbh.  After all, they'd surely just lay off their workers and liquidqte the assets while counting the cash from their ecig enterpris?



You don't have a very keen business mind then do you.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

maomao said:


> You don't have a very keen business mind then do you.



Perhaps not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> edit:  where they are lobbying, imo, is in encouraging the notion that the market should be better regulated to ensure that only quality ecigs are available. Quality presumably meaning the ones they make and sell.


exactly. The ones you buy in shops are both overpriced and terrible. The cheap stuff from China via the internet is far better.


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> exactly. The ones you buy in shops are both overpriced and terrible. The cheap stuff from China via the internet is far better.


And mostly prefilled cartridges, which are crap and expensive because you're paying for the plastic and the packing every refill too.


----------



## xenon (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fullers pubs have banned them now, too. I'm the same, though. Unfortunately, the ones like mine that look like felt-tip pens are being recognised more widely now. Just six months ago, few people knew what they were.



It's daft. For all those that might complain to the landlord about vaper, there are loads more ecig users who are probably drinking more as they don't need to go outside.

I'm assuming where pub chains have banned them, it's A: for a quiet life, because of people mistakenly complaining that someone's smoking. B: Their legal depts have advised them to adopt an over cautious policy, in case any risk, no matter how small, should subsequently come to light.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> It's daft. For all those that might complain to the landlord about vaper, there are loads more ecig users who are probably drinking more as they don't need to go outside.
> 
> I'm assuming where pub chains have banned them, it's A: for a quiet life, because of people mistakenly complaining that someone's smoking. B: Their legal depts have advised them to adopt an over cautious policy, in case any risk, no matter how small, should subsequently come to light.


I had a silly conversation in a Fullers pub recently - the one by Euston station - where the barmaid agreed with me that the ban is stupid but said she had little choice because of the cctv that had seen her seeing me using it.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> I'm assuming where pub chains have banned them, it's A: for a quiet life, because of people mistakenly complaining that someone's smoking. B: Their legal depts have advised them to adopt an over cautious policy, in case any risk, no matter how small, should subsequently come to light.



I can't speak for the chains*, but ime it's A.  And rightly so, imo, assuming the general consensus amongst customers is that they would prefer that.

*though is my experience of the middle management in chain pubs is anything to go by, the probably don't trust their staff to be able to tell the difference.

edit:  by 'A', I mean people complaining, rather than mistakenly thinking it's a cig iyswim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> I can't speak for the chains*, but ime it's A.  And rightly so, imo, assuming the general consensus amongst customers is that they would prefer that..


Rightly so? One or two people mistakenly think it's smoking and complain so you act on that, rather than acting on the the hundreds who do not complain?


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rightly so? One or two people mistakenly think it's smoking and complain so you act on that, rather than acting on the the hundreds who do not complain?



If you read my edit you'll see I clarified.  I also clearly said 'consensus'.  ie if a landlord decided that the majority of her/his customers would prefer to see them banned then yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> If you read my edit you'll see I clarified.  I also clearly said 'consensus'.  ie if a landlord decided that the majority of her/his customers would prefer to see them banned then yes.


You think they've carried out a poll, or just acted on one or two complaints? And what about knowledge - how about giving out a leaflet explaining what they are before calling for the vote? They won't have called a vote anyway. 

I can't believe that most drinkers are bothered at all by them.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think they've carried out a poll, or just acted on one or two complaints? And what about knowledge - how about giving out a leaflet explaining what they are before calling for the vote? They won't have called a vote anyway.
> 
> I can't believe that most drinkers are bothered at all by them.



No.  They created their policy based on the views expressed by their customers.  I don't see what is so difficult here.

As I have already made perfectly clear, I'm not talking about chain pubs.


----------



## mr steev (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> If you read my edit you'll see I clarified.  I also clearly said 'consensus'.  ie if a landlord decided that the majority of her/his customers would prefer to see them banned then yes.



Surely a landlord can do that anyway? There doesn't need to be a blanket law

On the other hand, as I said on another thread, both of the local pubs I frequent (one a free house and one Martsons) both seem to be encouraging the use of vapes. One had beer mats saying you can use them inside and sells them behind the bar, the other has chargers behind the bar that you can use


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

mr steev said:


> Surely a landlord can do that anyway? There doesn't need to be a blanket law



I haven't called for a blanket law.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> No.  They created their policy based on the views expressed by their customers.  I don't see what is so difficult here.
> 
> As I have already made perfectly clear, I'm not talking about chain pubs.


IME it is only chain pubs that have a problem with them. Specifically IME Wetherspoons and Fullers.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> IME it is only chain pubs that have a problem with them. Specifically IME Wetherspoons and Fullers.



Yeah, I'm sure chain pubs are more likely to have banned them, but pub chains are the sort of companies that insist on offering "a consistent customer experience" or similar bollocks, and the notion that the landlord might be best placed to decide on policy based on her/his customers' feedback is, ime, an alien concept to senior management.

My posts were referring solely to a couple of (non-chain) pubs where friends were managing.


----------



## xenon (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> I can't speak for the chains*, but ime it's A.  And rightly so, imo, assuming the general consensus amongst customers is that they would prefer that.
> 
> *though is my experience of the middle management in chain pubs is anything to go by, the probably don't trust their staff to be able to tell the difference.
> 
> edit:  by 'A', I mean people complaining, rather than mistakenly thinking it's a cig iyswim.



I appreciate a landlord/lady might feel compelled to ba all sorts of legal things if they're getting grief off customers. If ecig users complain about being turfed out when they want a vape, does it come down to a simple majority.

I wasn't too bothered about the smoking ban, albeit I was a smoker at the time. But I probably wouldn't want to drink any where with loads of prissy misinformed complainers against ecigs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> I appreciate a landlord/lady might feel compelled to ba all sorts of legal things if they're getting grief off customers. If ecig users complain about being turfed out when they want a vape, does it come down to a simple majority.
> 
> I wasn't too bothered about the smoking ban, albeit I was a smoker at the time. But I probably wouldn't want to drink any where with loads of prissy misinformed complainers against ecigs.


And what about the vast majority of punters who _don't complain_?


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

xenon said:


> I appreciate a landlord/lady might feel compelled to ba all sorts of legal things if they're getting grief off customers. If ecig users complain about being turfed out when they want a vape, does it come down to a simple majority.



Not a legal thing so much as providing an environment where the majority of their customers are happy to eat and drink, surely?  At the end of the day that's kind of their job.  And remember I'm only going off convos with friends here, but the impression I get is that these sorts of policies tend to be open to change depending on the needs/wants of customers.

see also:  friend who works in a pub with a "no fancy dress" policy.  If they ever felt that that was harming their business I'm sure they would change it, but as it stands it's in place because the majority of customers *seem* to prefer that.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And what about the vast majority of punters who _don't complain_?



What about them?  Surely if they're not complaining, then they don't care much either way?

edit:  I realise the tone in this post seems...abrupt, but it wasn't meant to be.  Was just a quick post before I go out.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Not a legal thing so much as providing an environment where the majority of their customers are happy to eat and drink, surely?  At the end of the day that's kind of their job.  And remember I'm only going off convos with friends here, but the impression I get is that these sorts of policies tend to be open to change depending on the needs/wants of customers.
> 
> see also:  friend who works in a pub with a "no fancy dress" policy.  If they ever felt that that was harming their business I'm sure they would change it, but as it stands it's in place because the majority of customers *seem* to prefer that.



A no fancy dress policy? Were they being besieged by hordes of Batman-wannabees?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> What about them?  Surely if they're not complaining, then they don't care much either way?
> 
> edit:  I realise the tone in this post seems...abrupt, but it wasn't meant to be.  Was just a quick post before I go out.


There's a problem with that, which is that 'non-smoking punter who sees no problem with efags' is unlikely even to be aware of any policy banning them, so will not make their opinion heard either way. That doesn't mean they're just 'neutral', though.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

scifisam said:


> A no fancy dress policy? Were they being besieged by hordes of Batman-wannabees?



stag/hen parties, basically.  Or rugby clubs out on a night out.  That kind of thing.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a problem with that, which is that 'non-smoking punter who sees no problem with efags' is unlikely even to be aware of any policy banning them, so will not make their opinion heard either way. That doesn't mean they're just 'neutral', though.



Well yes.  But it's a bit much to expect a landlord to proactively seek their opinions, surely?  They have a business to run after all.  Ultimately, any decision they make will be along the lines of "will banning/not banning ecigs cost me money?".  Which is basically your problem.

edit:  ffs, I don't know what's wrong with me.  By "your problem" I mean "the problem you have" rather than "suck it up".


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 2, 2014)

vornstyle76 said:


> Wales looks like its heading for a public places ban.



ffs


----------



## xenon (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Not a legal thing so much as providing an environment where the majority of their customers are happy to eat and drink, surely?  At the end of the day that's kind of their job.  And remember I'm only going off convos with friends here, but the impression I get is that these sorts of policies tend to be open to change depending on the needs/wants of customers.
> 
> see also:  friend who works in a pub with a "no fancy dress" policy.  If they ever felt that that was harming their business I'm sure they would change it, but as it stands it's in place because the majority of customers *seem* to prefer that.




That's what I meant. Anything legal that generates a few complaints is a PITA for the bar staff, who personally may not give a shit. You can't cater for all those minded to have a moan about something though. Ban snelly people, ban loud laughter. 



littlebabyjesus said:


> And what about the vast majority of punters who _don't complain_?



This applies to all sorts of contentions of course. Assuming a vote hasn't been called, those who don't complain are regarded as irrelevant. The Daily Mail and BBC complaints line as one example.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 2, 2014)

The Boy said:


> stag/hen parties, basically.  Or rugby clubs out on a night out.  That kind of thing.



Ah, that does make sense. 

Banning something should be on the grounds of demonstrable harm. Stag/hen parties have a tendency to behave really badly, especially the ones that are dressed up. Do they stop the ban at Halloween? 

E-cigs have no demonstrable harm. It's not up to the users to defend them, but the banners to prove why they should be banned.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 2, 2014)

What kind of absolute fucking twat complains about e-cigs?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Banning something should be on the grounds of demonstrable harm. .


Exactly. There seems to be a growing 'if in doubt, ban it' tendency surrounding these things, though.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 2, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What kind of absolute fucking twat complains about e-cigs?


 

we have a few at work, due to the perception and that they cant get thier fucking heads around that they are not in actual fact cigarettes


----------



## souljacker (Apr 2, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What kind of absolute fucking twat complains about e-cigs?



I swear there is some truth in the daily poke article from a while back which jokingly suggested that non-smokers have asked for cancer to be put into e-cigs: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/put-cancer-in-e-cigarettes-say-non-smokers-2014021983765

Non-smokers, who have so smugly looked on as smokers shiver in doorways and cough up blood every morning, are really pissed off that smokers have found a way of continuing their habit whilst removing the chance of dying a horrible death. And not only that, but the only 'damage' it does to people around them is that it makes the air smell faintly of strawberry or vanilla. The serial moaners have nothing to moan about and they hate that more than dieing from passive smoking related diseases. The stupid cunts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2014)

It's cheating. And, damnit, vapers appear to _enjoy_ their habit.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's cheating. And, damnit, vapers appear to _enjoy_ their habit.



when i told the docs i'd been a non-smoker since august i felt a total fraud


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 2, 2014)

wtfftw said:


> I vaped on a plane. Just don't exhale straight away and there's no vapour.


VAPES ON A MUTHAFUCKIN PLANE?!


----------



## maomao (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's cheating. And, damnit, vapers appear to _enjoy_ their habit.


I don't. I hate being dependant on anything but given how many times I've failed to give up it just seems like the least worst option.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 2, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> VAPES ON A MUTHAFUCKIN PLANE?!


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> IME it is only chain pubs that have a problem with them. Specifically IME Wetherspoons and Fullers.


Hydes brewery have just banned them in all there pubs. They are mainly Manchester based.


----------



## wayward bob (Apr 2, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Hydes brewery have just banned them in all there pubs. They are mainly Manchester based.



brains too i was told.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 3, 2014)

xenon said:


> That's what I meant. Anything legal that generates a few complaints is a PITA for the bar staff, who personally may not give a shit. You can't cater for all those minded to have a moan about something though. Ban snelly people, ban loud laughter.



Ah, right.  Gotcha.  On the last point, I'm pretty sure I've been in pubs that have banned loud laughter .


----------



## The Boy (Apr 3, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do they stop the ban at Halloween?



You know what?  I have no fucking idea .  I'll find out next time I'm there...


----------

