Vaping in public spaces?

[Rocky]

I thought there was a rule about no fighting?

That post made me smile (as did Joan’s)

[Fabbers]

I'm sure it's not against the rules......there's nothing to stop someone taking the nuggets of our arguments and posting them on CC

(nuggets - did you see what I did there?)

I assume Yellow Cards can still be used?

[Rocky]

I assume Yellow Cards can still be used?

It was probably worth a red

[Joan]

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of an otherwise excellent post?

I had a strong belief that the smoking bans contributed to making smoking socially unacceptable, thus contributing to the drop smoking rates. The figures seemed to back me up, showing a steady 27% smoking rate amongst adults from the early 90s, only starting to drop mid aughts, now down to 14.9%. I thought allowing vaping would undo this work, making nicotine use and thus smoking more acceptable.

Then I thought, let's compare with smoking rates in Australia, which was about 10 years ahead of the UK on smoking bans. The difference will be stark.

There was no difference. Australian smoking rates pretty well track UK rates, despite at times vast differences in the law. Arriving in the UK in 1999 felt like stepping back in time, with people smoking on public transport and at desks, it was as strange as going to another country to find that people were giving heroin to help their babies sleep. But despite the fact that Australian office workers had long been forced to stand outside to indulge their habit, the percentage of smokers in both countries was about the same, and dropped at the same rate down to about 15% in both countries now.**

So the smoking in public bans do not effect behaviours. Damn it. That means - in the absence of evidence of it's harms on non-users - I can't in good conscience oppose it.

**That doesn't mean the laws didn't work. They did their intended job of protecting non-smokers. It turns out they do nothing to discourage smokers.

[Regulator]

Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of an otherwise excellent post?

I had a strong belief that the smoking bans contributed to making smoking socially unacceptable, thus contributing to the drop smoking rates. The figures seemed to back me up, showing a steady 27% smoking rate amongst adults from the early 90s, only starting to drop mid aughts, now down to 14.9%. I thought allowing vaping would undo this work, making nicotine use and thus smoking more acceptable.

Then I thought, let's compare with smoking rates in Australia, which was about 10 years ahead of the UK on smoking bans. The difference will be stark.

There was no difference. Australian smoking rates pretty well track UK rates, despite at times vast differences in the law. Arriving in the UK in 1999 felt like stepping back in time, with people smoking on public transport and at desks, it was as strange as going to another country to find that people were giving heroin to help their babies sleep. But despite the fact that Australian office workers had long been forced to stand outside to indulge their habit, the percentage of smokers in both countries was about the same, and dropped at the same rate down to about 15% in both countries now.**

So the smoking in public bans do not effect behaviours. Damn it. That means - in the absence of evidence of it's harms on non-users - I can't in good conscience oppose it.

**That doesn't mean the laws didn't work. They did their intended job of protecting non-smokers. It turns out they do nothing to discourage smokers.

I think you're assuming that the primary aim of the smoking ban in the UK was to reduce smoking prevalence. That was just one of the aims. It was also intended to protect the public and, in particular, employees from the effects of secondhand smoke.

It is clear that it has been very effective in protecting the public and employees from the the effects of secondhand smoke. It has also had a positive impact of smoking prevalence.

There is increasing clinical evidence around the adverse effects of vaping on vapers health - particularly around lung function and immunity. You can assume, as with secondhand smoke, those adverse effects will also translate to non-vapers who are subject to 'secondhand vapours'.

Given the really deleterious effects of secondhand smoke, and the obfuscation of the tobacco lobby around the issues, I'd much rather the Government had the balls to take a robust precautionary approach with respect to vaping.

[Rutabaga]

I think some of the reduction in smoking has been as people discovered that it really did damage your health. Not everyone fell for the 'it's impossible to give up, more difficult than heroin' line (which has a ring of tobacco lobby about it perhaps), and some of us discovered that it's not that hard to stop; you just feel a bit weird for a week or so, then you start to feel absolutely bloody marvellous - and realise how ill smoking was making you feel before. Vaping might well get to that place at some point as well. It's an arc that a lot of fads follow.

[Joan]

I think you're assuming that the primary aim of the smoking ban in the UK was to reduce smoking prevalence.

Not at all. Did your enthusiasm flag before you reached my last paragraph/footnote?
That doesn't mean the laws didn't work. They did their intended job of protecting non-smokers. It turns out they do nothing to discourage smokers.

I'd much rather the Government had the balls to take a robust precautionary approach with respect to vaping.

The Australian Government has just outright banned it. Be interesting to see if there is any measurable difference in smoking rates if between the two countries if they hold that position.

[Lullabelle]

Nooooo why should we suffer the disgusting sickly smells from those pipes?

I admit if it's cut the numbers of smokers down that is excellent but it's still anti social to make others suffer the smells. They really are gross.

I totally agree, sickly sweet stink, awful stuff.