E-cigarettes are banned … in my house – and that’s the right thing

Ask most vapers (and even some plain ol air breathers), and they ll tell you any moratorium on e cigarettes is nothing short of lunacy Gestapo level injustice imposed by evil halfwits who appear bent on coercing nicotine fiends to stick with cancer causing tobacco by removing their ability to vape wherever they please. Vaping is not smoking. That s just science. Do you see me lighting anything on fire when I vape? Do you smell smoke? No, you don t. I can t help it if the white vapor I m blowing into the air is confusing you, you freakin imbecile.

Oh, um, sorry. I got carried away there. You re not an imbecile, promise. It s just that I m a little irritable. See, this question of whether or not vaping should be allowed indoors has become a major point of contention between my lovely fianc e, Jennifer, and me. And so far, she s coming out of this one on top.

She s what I like to call a better safe than sorry type. While we don t have any children, Jennifer insists, for example, that our dog wear a bright orange hunter s vest every time he goes on a hike (even at public parks), we unplug every lamp in the house each time we leave for more than an afternoon to ensure that our genius cats don t electrocute themselves by chewing on the cords, and I ve taken to snapping photos of the stove whenever I head out, as evidence that I managed to turn off all the burners.

Which brings me to the matter of vaping. A perfect evening for me consists of sitting on my couch with a reasonable glass of Scotch in one hand and my e cigarette in another, watching Game of Thrones with Jennifer and the rest of our little Critter Jug Band. That s what I would like to do. That s how I prefer to relax. Unfortunately, Jennifer has shamed me into agreeing that the e cigarette will not be part of that quaint domestic scene. Why? Because e cigarette vapor might not be safe, Jennifer says. Do I want to expose her and the critters to potentially dangerous vapor? Don t I love my family?

Dammit, yes, I love my family. Which is why I begrudgingly admit that Jennifer just might be right. Forget the fact that not a single study on e cigarettes has thus far shown that e cigarettes pose a health risk to direct users or second hand bystanders. Forget that I no longer smoke tobacco cigarettes thanks to e cigs. Forget that e cig vapor does not smell (much, anyway). And forget that I really freakin like doing it, so why can you just let me be happy?! No, instead, I m just inhaling random chemicals from China, which may or may not cause some hideous disease.

Bbc news — will changing cigarette packets reduce smoking?

Between 2006 and 2007 the UK also banned smoking in enclosed public spaces such as bars, restaurants and workplaces.

The ban has been described as «one of the most important public health acts in the last century» and studies have suggested lower rates of heart attacks and asthma since the ban.

A Department of Health funded study examining emergency admissions between July 2002 and September 2008 in England found a 2.4% reduction in admissions for heart attacks.

Research from Scotland reported a much larger 17% decrease in heart attack admissions in the year after its ban while another study found a 10% drop in the country’s premature birth rate, which researchers linked to the smoke free laws.

However, smokers’ groups say the ban has been a disaster for many pubs and clubs.

Do gruesome pictures work? Packets in Canada come with graphic health warnings

Graphic pictures on cigarette packages showing the dire health consequences of smoking are another tool used to dissuade people from smoking.

Black tar filled lungs, tumours and diseased rotting teeth are now a fixture on cigarette packets in some countries.

Canada led the way in 2001 and was shortly followed by Brazil and Singapore.

A study suggested the policy in Canada cut smoking rates by between 12% and 20% from 2000 to 2009.

The World Health Organization argues that the pictures «significantly enhance the effectiveness» of warning labels.

Some countries move the packets out of sight and keep them below shop counters.

What did Australia do?

On 1 December 2012, Australia formally introduced uniform packaging dominated by health warnings.

All tobacco company logos and colours were banned from packets. The only concession to the tobacco industry was that the name of the brand was allowed in small print at the bottom.

«This is the last gasp of a dying industry,» declared Health Minister Tanya Plibersek at the time.

Ireland is planning to follow suit and Scotland also has its own plans to introduce plain packaging.

What impact has it had?

Early findings from Australia, published in the British Medical Journal, suggested the move made smoking seem less appealing and increased the urgency for people to quit.

During the transition from glitzy to drab packaging, the research showed those smoking plain packaged cigarettes were 81% more likely to have thought about quitting and 70% more likely to say they found the cigarettes less satisfying.

But this will not be the measure of success for plain packaging.

The big questions has it cut smoking rates? Are fewer children taking up the habit? We still do not know.

Why is England lagging behind?


5 комментариев to “E-cigarettes are banned … in my house – and that’s the right thing”

  1. muggled cigarettes come from a variety of sources. Recent trends show that the current main source countries outside the EU are Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus. One component affecting current smuggling trends is the price differential between cigarettes in these markets compared to the prices

    • mposed on the weighted average retail selling price. From 1 January 2014, the specific component must be between 7.5 % and 76.5 %. Where there is a change in the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes in an EU country that takes the specific component of the excise duty below 5 % or 7.5

    • aged ones across southeast Asia, he stopped. I m always in a dilemma with whether I m the right person to tell someone else s story, he tells TIME. Why am I doing this? For me or for them? That was in late 2008, as he was finishing his third year of business school and starting lessons at the Pathsh

  2. ms that the extra paper (and chemicals?) add more toxins to an already unhealthy habit. On the other hand (to be fair), many smokers have made the switch without even realizing their favorite brands are now FSC. Some anti FSC people are trying to make their voices heard through a petition. You can l

  3. Kansas ($6.21) $5.83 6% 35. California ($6.77) $5.89 13% 34. Indiana ($5.77) $5.97 4% 33. Ohio ($5.88) $6.03 3% 32. Arkansas ($6.50) $6.07 7% 31. South Dakota ($6.77) $6.08 10% 30. Nevada ($5.50) $6.15 12% 29. Nebraska ($6.09) $6.23 2% 28. Oklahoma ($5.19), Iowa ($7.25) $6.29 21%, 13% 27. Florida ($

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.